Can we talk about Salo? I watched it last night and I'm not sure what to think about it.
>>71783118
fantastic movie that only redditors hate
It's shit.
Quite literally a turd that mars Pasolini's otherwise extremely good filmography.
>>71783123
>Only true Scotsmen enjoy this film!
>>71783123
Can't argue with that logic.
It's a masterpiece.
dude fascism is like making your children eat shit
Fucking awful movie only acclaimed because Pasolini went where nobody with any semblance of taste would go
>>71783354
>because Pasolini went where nobody with any semblance of taste would go
kek, you don't know shit about 70s europoor arthouse I see
>ywn be a boypussy inspector
>>71783407
Is there a lot of scatology and torture porn in Euro art films? Usually it's just lots of tits, and maybe a little incest
edgy, unsubtle garbage.
>>71783482
The 70s AKA the age of intersectionality, transgression, psychedelia and cultism was a very, very special time.
>"Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom: The film that my mother considered it essential to take me to see on the eve of my 18th birthday. I was old enough to learn the torture and the reptilian nature of human relationships. To this day, I continue to consider it as the most educational film about man’s domination by man."
What did Gaspar Noe mean by this?
>>71783118
I love extreme cinema and hate Salo. It's too arty to be exploitation; leaving it just pretentious.
Didn't find it disturbing at all.
>>71783723
Means he was a very impressionable teenager and never gained any self awareness about it
>>71783797
Maybe you shouldn't have gone into it with the expectation that it would be disturbing? I think a lot of people would have a better opinion of Salo if they judged it like any other film rather than having their opinion biased by factors like finding it too disturbing or being disappointed that it wasn't disturbing enough. Or feeling like because it has extreme content it must therefore be "edgy" and therefore must suck (which is retarded logic, imo). In watching and discussing the film, people tend to focus, if not talk solely of, the extreme, "disturbing," content and can look past other aspects of the film, like the fact that it's an extremely well made and beautiful film, in terms of things like cinematography or set design, or acting. The content isn't beautiful, but how it looks is.
I just think of it as one of those films where the plot may not be particularly complex, the characters aren't anything special and it's not extremely deep or thought-provoking (though it's not shallow, either), but it's so nice to look at that it's unfair to dismiss it as if it's without merit or is nothing more than shock value. I guess the same could be said for "A Serbian Film"—though I wouldn't say that film is nearly as good as this one, not even close, just that it's a decently well made film but people dismiss it just because they perceive it as being "edgy."
