Why is this never discussed on /tv/?
Because this board isn't filled with edgy teenagers...oh wait.
>>70351322
What is there to discuss?
>>70351322
>he wasn't here last year when it was FOTM with all the newfriends and there were several bump limit threads
Check out Simone Scafidi's Eva Braun next.
>>70351369
To be fair, this movie is only popular with edgy teenagers who actually watch movies. That's what separates them from the edgy teenagers on this board.
>>70351369
>edgy teenagers
I honestly never met any teenagers that have sat through the whole scene. They'll name drop it and probably talk about scenes they watched on youtube but that's about it.
It's one of my least favorite Pasolini films, pales in comparison to something like Teorema or Arabian Nights.
>>70351322
>tfw was having sex with gf at the time with this on in the background and didn't develop a scat fetish
poo will always be the final frontier
>>70351322
Because it was made by a commie faggot
>want to read the book first
>get to the unfinished sections where it's literally just notes for hundreds of pages
>can't push through them, and too autistic to watch the movie before finishing the book
ree
It is though, every time there's a film recommendation thread it's either Problem Child 2 or this movie.
>>70351322
I remember there was a very comfy /tv/ stream with this and Cannibal Holocaust a few years ago. Great times.
>>70351322
Fun facts: the principal cast of Sade's original story consists of 46 individuals, who can be grouped into anywhere from 8 to 10 "classes", depending on how you count. They take up residence at the "Chateau de Silling", a fictional estate which is (in the story) somewhere in Switzerland, within about 50 miles or so of Basel. It (the chateau) is described as being in Switzerland, and yet the party have to hike from France, through Basel, and later through the Black Forest (in SW Germany) in order to reach it. Historically, Switzerland's borders have not changed significantly since the early 18th century, the time setting of the story, so there is some small confusion in Sade's sketch of the location.
The Chateau itself is described as being almost impossible to access, in a gothic, mountainous location (a far cry from the plains of the first act of the film). So that once the party are all inside, a rope bridge is cut, and ain't nobody getting out now - until the spring.
The first act (capturing of victims with the occasional murder, rejecting slightest defects, reading of the rules "abandon all hope" etc), and particularly "The First day" hew pretty closely to Sade's text, but beyond this Pasolini permutes things in his modern direction, with the friends bitching about Baudeliere and the like.
Because it's so drenched in allegories of Italian political history that nobody understood it.
>>70353174
For a mental image of the Chateau's exterior as Sade had it, Coppola's Transylvania with Gary Oldman isn't too far off - impossible cliffs, an absolute bitch to access. However, Pasolini's interiors are closer than what Gary Oldman was skulking around in, although certain details are not the same.
Let's break down Sade's cast:
The Four Friends (4): 40s to 50s. Rich, powerful, murderous, evil bisexual perverts who will satisfy every urge, however depraved. They are collectively the "Mary-Sue" (a funny phrase to use in this context) self-insert of Sade himself into his story, especially the Duc de Blangis, the lead.
The Daughter-Wives (4): Late teens to early 20s. Each one is the biological daughter of one of the men, and the men variously marry each other's daughters and share them. A few of the wives are pious, which infuriates the Friends.
The Storytellers (4): 50s-60s. Older, matronly, elegant women, former whores who have seen some shit. Each woman will daily tell increasingly depraved stories of the things they've seen in their careers, each one responsible for one of the four months. They also help procure meat for the party.
The Duennas (4): 60s-70s. Decrepit, hideous, busted old whores. Charged with watching the girls and boys, and occasionally used for dumpster-diving fun. Fanchon is the nastiest.
The Girls (8): teenagers captured for the party.
The Boys (8): teenagers captures for the party.
The Fuckers (4 & 4): hung men and muscle who will fuck whatever needs fucking, including the Friends. They are sub-divided into two distinct classes: four (bigger) named fuckers, and four "subaltern" fuckers in lesser 7"-9" territory whom Sade does not even bother naming.
The Help (3 & 3): Three cooks and three scullery maids, who are mostly out of sight, don't "participate", and do not figure in most of the plot. However, they are dragged into the proceedings toward the end (Pasolini adapts this story element).
how is Pasolini's other stuff? it seems like this overshadows everything else he did.
>>70351322
because itsshit
>>70353662
Thanks! While I was always too put off by the movie to make it all the way through, the notes you guys are giving are helping in appreciation of its context... Doesn't make me want to watch it again, but an appreciation is always a good thing to develop, regardless! ;)
>>70351322
Because it's pretentious bullshit.
Seriously.
There's absolutely no difference between this and some of the videos in liveleaks. Critics need to validate their existance by separating themselves from the "rabble" by seeing something the "uneducated" cannot see. It happens in plastic arts and happens in cinema too.
I've read a lot about it and watched a few scenes on YT.
Just don't feel like I'd gain anything from sitting through three hours of it.
>>70351322
because it's shit, and it's only popular because of edgy tryhards who consider it art despite being glorified fetishist, badly filmed, crap.
>sexual submissives/Masoch
>despite being a literal cuck, has a sense of morality and ponders upon the nature of equality of the sexes
>sexual dominant/Sade
>complete psychopath, writes about how he wants to diddle kids that he made eat shit and then murdered
Doms, are you even fucking trying?
>>70353805
Stuff like Arabian Nights, The Decameron and Canterbury Tales sit nicely between Fellini and Jodorowsky for me.
>>70354024
The book is /much/, /much/ nastier than the movie.Although most of the actual killings are done as single notes right at the end of the text without any other context (and in that sense, one is hardly spoiling anything since we already sensed that most of these people will meet with a Bad End, a few of the actual killings are described with frightful detail. In total, only 16 of the above 46 survive, being these: all four friends, all four storytellers, all FOUR of the NAMED, bigger fuckers, the THREE COOKS only (who are left alone because their talents have been appreciated), and just one of the wives, who has learned to go along with the depravity. Everyone else is killed, usually being maimed somewhat a few days prior to the date of their actual death. The classes that survive are themselves a pretty ham-fisted indicator of the strong and wicked triumphing over the weak (boys and girls), the infirm (the duennas) and the good (the pious daughters), all of this of course being an inversion of Christianity.
>>70351322
It's been discussed on here forever dude.
The point is it's ok but nothing special and hardly as shocking as older reviews have made it out to be but that's just the way of the times.
I would give it a positive rating but wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to anyone.
>>70351322
>edge the movie
from a dramatic perspective it doesn't even make sense either, none of the people who aren't the 4 creepy old dudes decides to revolt and kill them despite seeing one by one their comrades being killed (thus knowing their fate). As far as the torture, your body literally can only handle so much pain before you pass out and all the weird fetish shit and gore, this is a movie made based off a book written by a crazy sadist
