Talk:Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom

Untitled

salo is basically the world today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.205.150 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly thirteen years after this was posted, I agree and say so frequently, but I can get so few people actually to watch it....

AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No subject

Moved these data here as they add little to the article and are unlikely to be of much interest to readers of this version of the 'pedia:

Director

Pier Paolo Pasolini;

Script

Pier Paolo Pasolini, Sergio Citti;

Camera

Tonino Delli Colli;

Produced by

Alberto Grimaldi for PEA (Rome)/Les Productions Artistes Associés (Paris);

Actors

Paolo Bonacelli, Aldo Valletti, Giorgio Cataldi, Umberto Paolo Quintavalle, Sonia Saviange, Caterina Boratto, Sergio Fascetti, Bruno Musso, Giuliana Melis, Dorit Henke and others

Ellsworth

DVD Versions

I changed the second to last paragraph under "Versions," mainly the statement that the BFI version is superior. While it is a bit better than the Criterion (albeit the burnt-in subtitles), it is miles behind the vastly superior French version on Gaumont Columbia Tristar Home Video. Take a look at http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/salo.htm and you will see what I mean. I also added this link to the "External Links" section.

Artificial Silence

WOW! What DVD did those screencaps come from? That looks way cleaner than the Criterion DVD which is a port of their laserdisc which actually had better picture quality in that format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.162.82 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2006

Marzabotto

Hi, I think there is an error in the plot. I saw the movie last week at a movie theater and I think the children were kidnapped from Marzabotto and taken to Salo. Marzabotto was the scene of a terrible massacre made by fascists, so in the fiction nobody would know about the children missing. Orkolorko —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.222.32.61 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

• You're almost right. The teens are kidnapped in Marzabotto, then taken to a villa outside of that town. Towards the end of the film, the libertines announce they will take the survivors with them to Salo.DRoninLA 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)DRoninA

They actually pass through Marzabotto on the way to the villa; that's where Ferrucio Tono escapes and is shot to death. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Libertines and dogs.jpg

Image:Libertines and dogs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Salo mutilation finale.jpg

Image:Salo mutilation finale.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hall of Orgies.jpg

Image:Hall of Orgies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Error under 'Acclaim'

I looked up the actors under other sources and no source corroborates that Dana Carvey appears as the President in this film. This mistaken information has also made it onto the Dana Carvey bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.230.235 (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone would even go so far as to check! Dana Carvey was 20 when Salo was shot, and clearly much too young to have played one of the libertines - even if Pasolini had been minded to cast a totally unknown US comedian as a middle-aged Italian. 86.139.73.152 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Carvey did in fact play "The President", if you compare his picture to that of "our illustrious Presidenté", you will see that they are undoubtably the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.27.42 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dana Carvey claim is totally credible, it's completely supported by many reputable sources, including any of the many, many texts on this film. Gary Indiana mentioned it in his BFI monograph, as well as other numerous references to popular US culture. I also note that the person who insists on adding this fact has also been adding useful and relevant material, such as details of the contents of the new BFI DVD and Blu-ray editions, he is a credit to wikipedia. 212.161.31.33 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the comment immediately above this one (dated 15 September 2008) has been vandalised since its original appearance. If you assume that the first version said more or less the exact opposite of what it currently says, you'll be a lot closer to the truth! But since the vandal now implies that Gary Indiana DOES claim that Dana Carvey appeared in the film, perhaps he would care to cite an exact page reference? 86.139.73.152 (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I have removed the statements lacking inline citations to this page until sources can be found for them. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• The film's legality has been questioned — namely, whether or not the actors and actresses who enacted simulated sex and violence in the film were of the age of consent.
• Culturally, Salò was voted "The Most Controversial Film Ever Made" by readers in a 2006 readers' poll by Time Out magazine.

Style/Tone of Article

This entry is written like a magazine article. "It is clear that..." ",however,..." "Moreover..." It needs to be pared down to an encyclopedia article. Also, it has numerous comma splices (look that up if you don't know what it is), so I don't know how it got the green check mark for grammar above. [Yes, I know I could fix it myself but I'm sick of spending an hour fixing up an article, just to have the original author get incensed that someone dared to modify "his" work. Then the reverts and endless arguments start. Sometimes it's easier to just point something out, and move along.] Tragic romance (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda-film

In this movie you can see soldiers of DECIMA FLOTTIGLIA MAS committ rape and torture, there are no proof whatsoever that they did this in WWII, it's just propaganda. X-MAS soldiers did never rape people, and they especially didn't kill ITALIAN KIDS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.97.204 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DVD version in Germany

If someone wants to find out which one is true: This page says that the DVD is freely available in Germany, while de:Die 120 Tage von Sodom (Film) says it’s not. --Nomeata (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Circle of Shit?

Underneath plot/synopsis, it said that the movie was parallel to Dante's inferno..."Anteinferno, circle of manias,circle of shit, and circle of blood."

Is this vandalism? I've already removed that part anyways. Just curious. --Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you think it's vandalism? I have reinserted the information as it appears to be valid (see this, this and this review). Your edit make that part of the article nonsensical in that it refers to four sections while naming only three. ElijahOmega (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Salò is outrageous by any measure — the Circle of Shit probably looks like vandalism if you haven't seen the film. --O'Dea (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He probably meant that Dante had no Circle of Shit in his Divine Comedy (or anywhere else). 89.105.238.200 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception and Controversy

I edited the sentence, "A large group of artists, including Martin Scorsese and Alec Baldwin, and scholars signed a legal brief arguing the film's artistic merit; the case was dismissed on a technicality." The Constitution is NOT a technicality. As the ACLU newsletter source makes clear, the Judge dismissed the case because the police violated the store owners' right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, I removed the passive voice in the clause following the semicolon. Sdeplonty (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unclear on victims

The top paragraph states that the victims in the film are executed one by one, but a later paragraph says that those that refuse to collaborate with the fascists are tortured and killed. Which is it? AndarielHalo (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Banned in the US

The article has this film listed as if it were banned in the US. I've seen this film readily available at several stores such as Best Buy and Fry's Electronics (at least in here Southern California), so where does information come from? --HiroProtagonist 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Making love?

Without having seen the film myself (assuming I would possess the fortitude to do so) I am still left to wonder -- given the description provided -- if euphemisms such as "making love" are appropriate descriptions of deeds of a sexual nature presented. I'm suggesting an edit anyway, but can't do it myself without any first hand knowledge of the subject. It sounds anyway as if, "having sex", or probably even "rape", would be more appropriate in most if not all instances--67.54.192.52 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This may call out Pasolini's own sexuality, but it appears that homosexual acts are the only ones permitted to be depicted as in any way loving or consensual. The instances of heterosexual contact between individuals are depicted as either literally rape or in any case coercive. One or two are shown to have been initiated with mutual consent; but this is not tolerated by the main characters, and is typically summarily punished.

Nuttyskin (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not quite true: Ezio and the servant girl are engaged in consensual heterosexual sex when they are discovered by the fascists, after which they are murdered. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say Ezio and the servant girl can be described as "making love" (see above comment); also Antinisca and Eva, and even the Duke and Guido (even though the power relationship is still highly suspect). I'm fairly certain that in all other instances the term is widely inappropriate for this film. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Obvious error?

In Controversies section it says, ' the DVD was passed due to "the inclusion of 176 minutes of additional material which provided a context to the feature film."' Clearly that makes no sense as you can't include more material into a movie than the length of the movie. 176 must be wrong, but from the cited I couldn't see the source of the number. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that running time refers to the additional documentaries and interviews that were included on the DVD. Muzilon (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Underage sex scenes

I'm wondering how come the scenes depicting underage actors in sexual situation haven't been mentioned as a controversy. For example that boy with sperm on his mouth. More sources need to be added.83.7.164.33 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Production section

The production section seems unclear, like a sentence is missing in the middle. Probably "heretofore" should be replaced with an explanation? RSI was a puppet state of Germany, and Nazi used it to round up Jews and send them to the extermination camps. Prior to that Italian officials refused to implement the Final solution. Question - prior to what? To the creation of RSI? Then it should be mentioned. Thanks. Also, does it belong to the production section? 69.119.232.155 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Production section needs to be expanded

The production section for this article is extremely underdeveloped and does not cite its sources. This section should be expanded greatly upon with much more information on the film's production added to it. I have added a couple pieces of information in it but it needs to be expanded a lot more than what it currently is at.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoever expanded the production section did a terrible job. Not only is it poorly written and now needs to be rewritten, but a lot of it is unsourced. Hopefully this will be fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That Darned Production Section

This is more or less a reiteration of my previous post on this page but it still needs to be said. Almost everything in this article, with the exception of the production section, is near GA status content. However, the production section is so poorly written and undersourced that it completely negates all of the other well written content here and it seriously needs to be rewritten entirely so that it fits with rest of the article's carefully written content. Hopefully someone will come around and put the finishing touches to this article, which includes a complete rewrite and expansion of the production section, it seems to be a very interesting subject.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I recently (as of the last few days) did some work on this article, which included totally reorganizing and expanding the production section. I also did a complete overhaul on the reference section which was a bit of a mess, and also added a "Legacy" section, among other things. It looks significantly better than the what it was when I first started on it. Given this film's notoriety and the fact that it does have a cult following, I was surprised to find the article needing so much work. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for the work DS. Unfortunately a lot of articles are like this. :(--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218040305/http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Salo120_Days_of_Sodom to http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Salo120_Days_of_Sodom
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226144923/http://tiff.net/essential/about/essential100 to http://tiff.net/essential/about/essential100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the film considered an art film instead of exploitation?

I don't get it why is this film considered an arthouse instead of exploitation?there is any reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:85A3:420D:48F:3420:3B0C:12CC (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

They're not mutually exclusive. David Church wrote a pretty good paper on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a re-interpretation of a French novel written in the 18th Century, re-located to Italy during the war. Also, its director is a noted auteur. That's why!

Nuttyskin (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It is also brilliant commentary on fascism and consumerism. I see plenty of people on the news who remind me of the various fascists in Salò. It's also far too intellectual (discussions of Baudelaire and Nietzsche) and grim in its tone to be exploitation. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

They’re not exclusive and the film is beyond just an exploitation film, and Church’s work is technically horror in general not just exploitation film. Exploitation film is often just trendy shocks that are cash grabs. This film was clearly not meant for a commercial cash grab, but and artistic statement. Therefore, horror art film makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:54F0:BFD7:3ECF:A9 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Slight Confusion

the Duke, the Bishop, the Magistrate and the President

The character here designated as "President" is actually a Président of legal jurisprudence; in other words, a Magistrate. The two terms for Magistrate have been confused into two separate characters. The fourth Friend is the Banker or Financier, Durcet.

Nuttyskin (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)