Deja News Toolbar Home About Deja News Search Post My Deja News Help

Devshed.com - Tools to build a better website
Devshed.com - Tools to build a better website

 Article 614 of exactly 1426
  <<
Previous
Article
  >>
Next
Article
  /\
Current
Results
Email a Friend
Email this message!
  • Help
  • Author Profile
  • View Thread
  • Post New
  • Post Reply
  • Email Reply
  • Bookmark
  • Text Only

  • Subject:      Re: Salo - The 120 Days of Sodom - question
    From:         cx955@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Dylan David Wagner)
    Date:         1997/05/25
    Message-ID:   <5m8dsk$j10@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
    Newsgroups:   alt.cult-movies
    [More Headers]
    [Subscribe to alt.cult-movies]
    
    
     (692609@ican.net) writes:
    
    	Good day!
    
    > I'm interested in hearing any opinions on Pasolini's Salo. Anyone who
    > has seen it please let me know what this film is really like. 
    > 
    > I read the Marquis de Sade's 120 days of sodom and although it gets
    > incredibly revolting, extreme, and offensive I find it a fascinating
    > piece of literature and I was wondering if the film even comes close?
    > 
    > I would also like to know if this flic is legal in Canada/Ontario?
    
    
    	This message brought back memories! I used to be qutie keen on the
    old 120 Days as well. In fact I have an old research paper on the book and
    film (examining it's artistic value) that I'll throw on the end...
    
    	Now let's see... I saw the film before I read the book, but then
    again I wasn't totally unarmed, I had read some Sade before. I saw the
    film at -get this- The National Film Archives (on Wellington, in Ottawa)
    it was part of a Passolini festival. Now the film is supposed to be banned
    in Canada, but they got permission to show it as part of that festival...
    
    	Yet I have my doubts as to wether it's really banned since a
    fellow Ontarian had the Criterion edition Laserdisc of the film... So if
    it is banned, it's not very well enforced... 
    
    	
    
    
    > Any comparisons between de Sade's book and Pasolini's film would be of
    > great interest to me.
    
    
    	I'll let the paper deal with that...
    
    > 
    > Just so you all know - I dont get off on this type of crap in the
    > least - I'm fascinated by the behaviour of the libertines and am
    > trying to get a better understanding of how anyone could derive
    > pleasure like the four vile fiends depicted in de Sade's work.
    
    	Most people who read Sade don't quite get off on it either. Though
    I'm sure some do, after all I've seen Sade books at a bondage store once!!!
    Personally I was/am in it for the philosophy...
    
    > (For anyone not familiar with the Marquis de Sade's 120 days of sodom
    > - I recommend it if you want a truly shocking reading experience -
    > just make sure you have a damn strong stomach).
    
    
    	Strong stomach! Ha! More like strong eyes! I love Sade, but he's
    a horrid writers! His tales can be so bloody borring! 120 Days nearly
    killed me! I found the excess in 120 days just got to absurd after awhile
    and one was so dessensitized that it hardly shocked you... And I was only
    17 when I read it...
    
    
    Well here's the paper... Keep in mind it was written a year ago, and I
    wrote it the day before handing it in and didn't really proof read it...
    Also the Annexes and footnotes are mysteriously absent! (actually I
    never typed them, I added them on in ink during lunch period before
    handing this sucker in). In case you were wondering what I got, I got 95%
    Lost most of my points because the paper was too biased (hard to
    criticize Sade and Passolini when you like their work!)
    
    
    	Well here goes!
    
    Table of Contents
    
    
    
    
    
    Preface..........................................................
    ........................................................1
    
    
    
    A.
    Sade.............................................................
    .....................................................2
    
          
    
    	1. The Man
    .................................................................
    ..................................2
    
    	2. The
    Writer...........................................................
    .....................................3
    
    	3. The
    Philosopher......................................................
    ..................................4
    
    
    
    
    
    B. The 120 Days of
    Sodom............................................................
    .......................5
    
    
    
    C. Salo: The 120 Days of
    Sodom............................................................
    .............7
    
    
    
    D. Artisitic
    Value............................................................
    ......................................9
    
    
    
    Conclusion.......................................................
    ......................................................11
    
    
    
    Bibliographie....................................................
    .....................................................13
    
    
    
    Appendix.........................................................
    ......................................................14
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Preface
    
    
    
    	Oct 29 1994, 8:40pm...
    
    		Having paid our 6,50$, we entered the small glorified
    screening room that they here called a theater. Here being the
    National Canadian Archives. Word of my mouth is what brought us
    there, the word that Salo:120 Days of Sodom is one of the best
    horror films ever made. An absurd statement; I'd like to find
    that person and set them straight. Salo is definitely not what
    we expected, and it's definitely not a horror film either.
    Renowned poet, artist and filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini's film
    adaptation and modernization of the Marquis de Sade's 120 days
    of Sodom, is an exploration of human depravity. Two hours of the
    darkest, cruelest sexual fantasies of four libertines whom
    gather to celebrate their loss, as Fascist Italy disintegrates
    during the end of WWII. 
    
    
    
    		But I didn't come to the film empty headed, I had an idea of
    what to expect. I had first heard of Sade roughly 2 months
    before seeing the film, a friend haven introduced me to his
    extreme philosophy, thereafter I purchased a book of his early
    writings to see what there was to be seen. But Sade's
    "Misfortunes of Virtue" and Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" are so
    extremely different in terms of content; the underlying themes
    and philosophy are the same, but the way it is expressed is
    incredibly different. Whereas Misfortunes of Virtue hides behind
    the semblance of a virtuous novel, 120 Days of Sodom goes all
    out and leaves nothing -NOTHING- to the imagination. And neither
    does the film: "This film contains disturbing material which may
    offend" the caption said. Rather an understatement, indeed the
    film WILL offend, that is half of its charm! From the time the
    film began, 'til the time the film ended, I would say at least
    half -if not more- of the original ticket payers left. And these
    are people who had a pretty good idea what to expect, people who
    enjoy fringe/art films. Imagine the reaction of the regular film
    goer? After seeing the film, and being properly numbed by it,
    my interest in Sade grew but not for the eroticism, if needs be
    there is much better erotic literature out there than his. But
    for the extremes depicted and of course for his libertine
    philosophy. 
    
    
    
    	And now a year and a half later, after having read most of
    Sade's great works, including 120 Days of Sodom, I think it's
    time to figure it out. The matter is clear on his other books,
    they all have merit, be it philosophical, satirical or other.
    But the matter is more difficult when evaluating 120 Days of
    Sodom. There is no new Sadean revelations in the book, no truly
    great philosophical discourses, just a lot of torture and sex.
    And the film is no different, whereas other Pasolini films are
    similar, they have a clearer social/political element (be it
    mockery, satire, or other), Salo is a little more difficult to
    analyze, the satirical element not being especially strong. So
    the grand question as come: Is 120 Days of Sodom (and Salo, it's
    film version) Pornography? Or does it have some merit? Enough to
    justify it? Through the use of my personal library, including
    the many essays that are always included  before Sade's tales;
    the university's and local libraries; the internet; and my great
    analytical mind; I will attempt to answer, in a suitable form,
    weither or not 120 Days as enough merit to pull it out of the
    dark pit of pornography and into the radiance cast only by
    art... 
    
    
    
    	 
    
    
    
    
    
    	It is perhaps best that, before we study the book and the film,
    that we learn a little about the man who started it all. The
    person behind the name, the man "more talked about than read"1
    
    
    
    Sade
    
    
    
    1. The Man:
    
    
    
    	At first glance an average aristocrat: cultured and handsome.
    He takes part in the seven year war and comes out with the rank
    of captain. There is nothing of the extreme rebel of his later
    days found in this young man. He obeys and respects his father,
    accepts the parent's arranged marriage to a rich young girl of the
    petty aristocracy. Yet all of this was on the surface, Sade was
    indeed waging war. A war that took place inside the brothels. He
    was known as being a violent one, who would ask for odd, often
    painful favors. One of these encounters landed him in jail, his
    first of many stays, accused of debauchery and blasphemy. But
    his moderately influential family intervened and this 23 year
    old Marquis was sentenced to a year's banishment. 
    
    
    
    	Sade's first official crime produced quite the effect in him;
    he cried, he prayed, he begged that no one tell his wife of his
    betrayal. But never would he give up his disturbing pleasures,
    already they had taken an important place in his life. Many have
    debated over what Sade's original attraction was to Sadism, why
    he so liked to hurt women. Famous Sade admirer and critic,
    Pierre Klowssowski, who decided upon discovering Sade not
    through the relatively obscure facts about his life but through
    his works. There he has found that Sade's hatred for women seems
    to stem from an original hatred of his mother2 And why not?
    Mothers do indeed take a quite a bashing in Sade's works. A
    mother's genitalia is mutilated by her once virtuous daughter,
    turned Sadean women in Philosophy in the Boudoir. Or in the
    Misfortunes of Virtue, the young Marquis De Bressac poisons his
    mother in order to gain her wealth. But the renowned author
    Simone de Beauvoir takes this one step further; she says it is
    not Sade's original mother he despises, but his ruthless mother
    in law3. Indeed he has reason to. After Sade as gained a
    reputable name, after he has turned his wife into a faithful and
    loyal accomplice, after Sade seduces the woman's young daughter,
    Sade's own sister in law; she uses her power to get a lettre de
    cachet, guaranteeing that Sade will be behind bars indefinatly. 
    
    
    
    	Of course no one planned for the French Revolution. The
    revolution that saw Sade not only free, but put him in a place
    of power. Power because of the grande injustice of the lettre de
    cachet, something the revolutionaries found to be the ultimate
    example of the ancienne regime's tyranny. The Revolution was a
    time of great aristocrat slaughters. And who else but Sade was 
    appointed judge. The decision of who to execute and who not
    execute was in his hands. Sade's Sadism finally found a means of
    expression that was socially acceptable. What did Sade do?
    
    He tried to save as many families as he could, among them, the
    Montreils, who are not only his wife's family, but also the ones
    who had him imprisoned in the Bastille for so long. Sade saved
    them... To Sade murder for pleasure was justifiable, but murder,
    on a grand scale, in the name of justice was against his
    principles. 
    
    
    
    	Of course this angered the extremists who cried for blood and
    Sade was again imprisoned.  Sade narrowly escapes the mass
    executions of traitors and is released; whereupon he finds he
    has been put on a list of ‚migr‚s and no longer has access to
    his money. For the next few years he works in theater
    productions and writes. His books are published but are often
    seized. In 1801 Sade is arrested and incarcerated, due to his
    obscene writings. While in prison he attempts to seduce some new
    arrivals and is sent to Charenton, that popular asylum for the
    insane, where Sade lives out the last decade of his life. A
    decade spent writing unsuccessful plays, requesting freedom of
    Napoleon and always a being met by a refusal. Labeled
    unreformable and described as lost "in a permanent state of
    libertine dementia."4 There Sade dies( though not before having
    an affair with a 16 year old, a girl 47 younger than he), his
    final will asking that he be buried in an unmarked grave and
    that bushes be planted above him so as to be forever
    forgotten... This first part of his will was carried out, but
    never has he been forgotten...
    
    
    
    2.The Writer 
    
    
    
    	Unreadable, excessive, repetitive, tedious catalogues of
    contradictory ideas and excess.
    
    Sade wrote long confessions, revealing his own personal beliefs
    and reasons. However much of a clich‚ it has become, Sade wished
    to be accepted has he is: A sadistic, adulterous, sodomite,
    libertine. He might have been asking too much...
    
    
    
    	Most of Sade's major works were written in prison, under the
    worst of conditions: microscopic writing on scrolls, forever
    fearful that the guards will come and tear his work to shreds. 
    
    
    
    	Sade became a writer late in life, he was 42 when he wrote his
    first work: Dialogue between a priest and a dying man , a short
    work that sets the stage for the novels to come. 
    
    
    
    	Among Sade's many novels and short stories, there was one that
    he never seemed satisfied with. The short novella called the
    Misfortunes of Virtue, later expanded and revised and called
    Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue, 6 years later he expands
    it again and calls it The New Justine, or the Misfortunes of
    Virtue, followed by The History of Juliette, her sister, or the
    Properties of Vice. It would truly be absurd to read all of the
    novels that are so similar. 
    
    
    
    	Sade also wrote many plays, most of which were unsuccessful,
    all except for Oxitern, which tells the tale of a malicious
    older man in love with the young Ernestine. But this man is no
    normal man, he is a Sadean character, larger than life and twice
    as evil! He has Ernestine's lover hanged as a traitor, in front
    of his castle's window as he deflowers the poor Ernestine. Who
    later wishing Oxitern's blood agrees to a duel with him. But
    Oxitern is wickedly smart and as arranged things so that
    Ernestine's father who also wishes a duel with Oxitern, goes to
    the meeting place and actually fights his daughter. Things are
    dark and he mortally wounds her before noticing it is not
    Oxitern at all... 
    
    
    
    	Sade also wrote political pamphlets, some supporting the
    revolution (though it is believed he did this to save his own
    life, for he was, after all, an aristocrat), others giving France
    guidelines to become a great country. One of these last
    pamphlets was worked into his story The Crimes of Love, a truly
    desperate gimmick. But as said before, Sade wrote to change the
    world so that he could walk free, without fear of persecution
    because of his wild tastes. His works are justifications, using
    philosophy as a tool...
    
    
    
    3. The Philosopher
    
    
    
    	"I am a Philosopher" says Sade, "those who know me can have no
    doubt that I am proud to be known to profess as much"6 If
    anything Sade's books should be read for the philosophy.
    Something that as been to often overlooked or ignored. The
    eroticism, the excess, the violence, are all just a shell, a
    vehicle through which Sade promotes his philosophy; the
    justification for his deviant passions. 
    
    
    
    	Sade is perhaps one of the earliest true materialist, perhaps
    even the only true materialist. Like many other materialist Sade
    argues that life is but a continual, unstoppable flow of matter;
    unending movement. Through this Sade paints mother nature as a
    careless, indifferent force, whose only wish is to create,
    create, create! And in order to create, she needs matter, and
    the easiest way to free up matter is through destruction. This
    is how Sade justifies all acts of evil he does, or might do. 
    
    
    
    	To him Society is an "unnatural construct, designed to thwart
    nature"6, by helping the dying, by imposing constraints on
    violent behavior, society prevents the freeing up of matter. 
    
    
    
    	Sade also likes to disprove right and wrong through the use of
    Nature as ultimate judge. For something to be wrong, it would
    have to go against Nature. For something to go against Nature it
    would have to take place outside of the Nature's laws. Therefore
    it  follows that because we are all a part of Nature, and are
    subject to her laws, nothing we do can be wrong because we were
    capable of doing it! 
    
    
    
    	Sade found all of this very liberating, it justified all sorts
    of atrocities that him, or his characters could commit. Which
    indirectly brings us to the idea of what came first? His taste
    for cruel pleasures? Or the philosophy that justified them?
    
    
    
    	
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The 120 Days of Sodom
    
    
    
    	While locked away in the Bastille, a writer was born, this
    writer's first major work was to 
    
    fill a scroll twelve meters long and 12 cm wide with a
    microscopic writing that easily surpasses 250 000 words. The
    writer is Sade, the tale: The 120 Days of Sodom. Written in 20
    days, under fear of confiscation, this book is Sade's lost
    masterpiece. When Sade was transferred to the Charenton asylum,
    he firmly instructed his wife not to forget his possessions,
    mainly his manuscript. But ten days later, the Bastille was
    stormed by Revolutionaries, and all of Sade's belongings went up
    in flames.
    
    
    
    	Sade shed "tears of blood" 7 when he learnt of its loss
    <Appendix > . If not Sade's masterpiece, it was at least a
    cornerstone in his evolution as a writer, an entry into the
    giant epics like Justine that would make him famous, or rather,
    infamous. But more than that it is a huge work, that if
    completed, would have filled volumes with Sade's vile
    deviancies. As it remains, the work is but a rough draft. A book
    separated into four sections and preceded by a long introduction
    that introduces the characters and the setting. Only the
    Introduction and the first part were completed, the rest it but
    rough notes, describing in brief detail what the tortures of the
    day are to be. 
    
    
    
    	The book itself is about 4 men, wealthy and powerful, who all
    share the same consuming 
    
    desire. The desire for absolute pleasure, found only in sexual
    tyranny. These four libertines pool their money and prepare for
    4 months of absolute debauchery; 120 days of Sodom. Eight of the
    most beautiful young men and women -many of them sons and
    daughters of noblemen, something the libertines find exciting
    and heighten the worth of the child- to use as sex slaves. Then
    four of the most well endowed men in France are found in order
    to bugger the libertines when they so choose. As well four of
    the most experienced whores and four of the vilest, ugliest old
    women are brought along. The whores to lead their months
    recitals with erotic tales all based around a theme, in order to
    arouse the four libertines. The old hags to take care of the
    young boys and girls. The libertines and their company leave for
    the Duke's (the Duke being one of the Libertines) castle. From
    here on the story nears a fairy tale: the castle is atop a giant
    mountain, surrounded at all sides by sheer cliffs, separated by
    a ravine, whose bridge is cut after the libertines pass, the
    castle itself is well fortified and surrounded by a moat, and
    below lies a village of thieves all in the employment of the
    Duke. How could anyone, if anyone knew of the place, come and
    rescue the slaves? Complete isolation! There is no escaping the
    fate prepared, all the reader can do is sit and watch... in
    horror.<Annex  >
    
    
    
    	It is perhaps interesting to note, while still on the topic of
    the book's history, that earlier in Sade's life he attempted to
    arrange an "orgy" of similar setting at his chateau of La Coste.
    He assembled pretty maids, cooks, and some men. But La Coste is
    not as well fortified as the Duke's
    Castle. Sade's servants refused to play the roles he asked of
    him, some escaped, another went on to give birth to child she
    attributed to Sade, and yet another told her father who then
    came to La Coste to shoot Sade. 
    
    
    
    	As we said earlier, the manuscript for 120 Days of Sodom was
    thought lost in the fires. But it wasn't, a soldier later found
    it in Sade's cell, and it henceforth came into the possession of
    the Villneuve-Trans family who sold it to German collector in
    1904. Where it was published by the German Psychiatrist Dr. Iwan
    Bloch under a pseudonym. But this first edition was filled with
    thousands of errors which served only to distort the original
    manuscript.
    
    
    
    	Later in 1929, a certain Mister Maurice Heine went to Berlin to
    purchase the manuscript, whereupon he published what is
    considered the definitive, original edition. 
    
    
    
    	 Though after the Napoleon era, all of Sade's books were
    banned, 120 Days of Sodom was not yet published at that time.
    But more recently, due to the Custom Laws Consolidation Act of
    1876 (which prohibited the importation of material deemed
    "obscene"), England was without any books by Sade, save a few
    booksellers who dared defy the law. Even the American
    translations that were severely edited and censored were refused
    entry. It was not until 1983, that England redefined Sade's
    works and allowed them entry into England. 
    
    
    
    	Similarly, in the United States, Sade was also banned, until a
    revision to the Tariffs Act in the 1930's allowed books deemed
    as literature classics to be allowed entry. Though this was
    mainly for Joyce's Ulysses, Sade's works also benefited from
    this.
    
    	 
    
    	Then of course there is Canada's customs system, that has
    blacklisted many books. Among them, is Sade's 120 Days of Sodom,
    though not banned, the book will sometimes be denied entry. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    		 
    Salo: 120 Days of Sodom
    
    
    
    	Indeed a productive man: poet, novelist, playwright, cultural
    critic and filmmaker. Not only this but he was a profoundly
    religious homosexual and perhaps Italy's leading 20th century
    intellectual. But above all, he is known for his films. Social
    criticisms, revisions of popular myths;
    always controversial, always explicit, always successful and
    well received. That is until Salo. 
    
    
    
    	Now at then end of his career, Pasolini had complete artistic
    freedom on any work he did. Producers weren't even allowed on
    the set, and no dialogue needed be shown. For Salo, Passolini
    wished to convey an extreme sense of realism, and for this he
    hired unprofessional actors. People off the streets, teachers,
    writers, small theater actors. And while shooting he had only
    the sketchiest script, and this he never shows his actors. He
    told them there lines, and how to move mere seconds before they
    were to be in a scene. 
    
    
    
    	Salo was an easy film to make, Passolini was big name and
    financing was no problem. As well the film was inexpensive to
    make: no stars, travel, and one constant interior. The Press got
    wind of some of the content of Passolini's "next film" and were
    often around the set during the films thirty seven days of
    shooting (March 1st to April 14th -1975). 
    
    
    
    	The film itself is based on Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, and is
    very similar, except for the exclusion of one of the four
    narrators, and the transportation of Salo from a protected
    castle in France, to an Italian mansion in the republic of Salo.
    But still the context is similar, whereas 120 Days was near the
    Revolution, Salo takes place during the last days of the Fascist
    Regime in Italy, the four libertines taking advantage of their
    last chance to exploit their power. 
    
    
    
    	At the time of the film's released, Passolini was facing a
    trial, accusations of seducing a young boy were brought against
    him, and the release of Salo did nothing if not strengthen these
    claims. 
    
    
    
    	When the film was ready for release, the Ministry of Tourism
    and Spectacle looked it over, and though the producer was ready
    to make some cuts, they unanimously voted that it be banned from
    Italian screens, because: "In all its tragedy, it brings to
    screen images that are so aberrant and repugnant of sexual
    perversion as certainly to offend community standards"8.
    
    
    
    	Yet Salo was a joint production between Italy and Paris, and
    though the film was now banned it Italy, it was still shown in
    Paris. Little if any of critics hailed it, one said: "I hope
    Salo will be shown to empty theatres"9.
    
    
    
    	Meanwhile the makers of Salo appealed its banning, and won. The
    film was released onto the Italian public, bringing in a total
    of 40 million Lire. In contrast the film cost 800 million Lire
    to make.
    
    
    
    	Some 3 weeks after its initial release, the film was
    sequestered and the producer brought up on charges of "commerce
    in obscene publications" as well as "corruption of minors" and
    "obscene acts in a public place". The reasons for these charges
    are not that he ran some sort of child pornography ring, but
    because he is responsible for the release of Salo. The film was
    viewed by the court, and banned. A few months later, the
    prosecution dropped the charges. 
    
    
    
    	Meanwhile Salo was also playing in other countries, but was
    often cut short, as in Frankfurt and Stuttgart were protests by
    the Catholic Parents Association, managed to close down the film.
    
    
    
    	Closer to home and 2 years later, Salo premiered in New York
    for the 1977 New York Film Festival. The New York Times
    reported: 
    
    
    
    		"At the Saturday night screening, gagging noises from
    spectators
    
    		 were heard... about two dozen members of the largely male
    
    		 audience walked out. Still at the end of the film, the cheers 
    
    		 and applause drowned out the hisses and boos"10
    
    
    
    								
         
    
    	More recently, in America, the film as surfaced again in
    courts. This time used in charges against to men who own a
    homosexual oriented store called "The Pink Pyramid". Furthermore
    it is still unsure whether the actors used by Passolini were
    under age, if so these men could face child pornography charges
    as well. What is needed to bring all of this together is proof
    that Salo is obscene, that it lacks "Serious literary, artistic,
    political, or scientific value". This may be difficult to prove
    since the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) will be present
    to challenge any argument that attempts to prove the Salo is not
    art. 
    
    
    
    	
    
    
    
    
    Artistic Value
    
    
    
    	Both Sade and Passolini have objectionable characters. Sade, as
    shown, was a man of ferocious passions which ruled him
    throughout his life. As indeed is shown by his stays in prison,
    were he couldn't deliver himself to debauches, so he ate and
    ate, and gained considerable weight. 
    
    And Passolini was known to solicit male prostitutes, in fact it
    was a young 17 year old prostitute who bludgeoned him to Death
    shortly after the completion of Salo. 
    
    
    
    	With this in mind it might prove difficult to separate these
    men's sexual appetites from the films they made. It might in
    fact prove impossible.
    
    
    
    1. Book
    
    	
    
    	We are now well aware of Sade's situation when he wrote 120
    Days: alone, locked away in a prison. A man of considerable
    passions, it is quite conceivable that he would submit his
    desires to paper as a means of titillation. In fact where there
    not proof to the contrary, 120 Days could easily be brushed
    aside. But though this titillation aspect might come into play,
    it is not the sole reason for Sade's writing of The 120 Days of
    Sodom.
    
    
    
    	Though there is little of the long, almost exhaustive
    philosophical diatribes that can be found in his later books;
    and although 120 Days is still unfinished; and even though it is
    a repetitious, almost tedious catalogue of excess; there is
    still some literary value. One could begin by mentioning the
    excellently crafted setting: a lone castle, atop an impenetrable
    cliff guarded by a city of thieves. It all has the feel and tone
    to a fairy tale.
    
    	
    
    	Then there is Sade's intent; imprisoned for his tastes he
    wished to rebel and destroy. And this he did: the 120 days of
    Sodom is an attack on all of humanity. We are debased,
    objectified and ultimately used as tools by the tyrannical four;
    the libertines who so mirror Sade. As says Geoffrey Gover: 
    
    
    
    		His aim is no less than to strip every covering, both mental 
    
    		and physical, of man and expose him to our disgusted gaze 
    
    		as the mean and loathsome creature he is. 11
    
    
    
    Indeed through excess, Sade wishes to turn man into the animal
    he is, and show us all, once and for all, what we really look
    like. For indeed it is disquieting when near the end of the four
    months, certain slaves begin to participate more than their duty
    requires, others seem to almost enjoy themselves. 
    
    
    
    	On the psychological level, this book precedes not only the
    work of Freud in the area of sex in relation to power. But also
    is a century ahead of Kraft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis.
    Sade indeed is the first to catalogue man's sexual deviencies.
    He even admitted to having a "scientific" reason for writing the
    book.
    
    
    
    	Then one could look at it in the context of the evolution of
    the Sadean novel. It is after all a turning point; his first
    major work, that sets the philosophical and sexual basis for
    works to come. It as been said that when Sade lost this, he wept
    tears of blood for his masterpiece. His best work it might not
    be, but it is his first, and for the Sadean scholar, it is
    indispensable in understanding Sade.
    
    
    
    2.Film
    
    	
    
    	Some critics have accused Passolini of using Salo to exploit
    not only the youth of Italy, whom he admittedly looked upon with
    disgust (Annex ), but to place his own sexual fantasies on film.
    An act of tyranny that Sade would be proud of.  
    
    
    
    	  Others have accused him of hiding behind an attack on Fascism
    as a means of showing 
    acts of sadomasochism, something that has been done many times
    in exploitational cinema. 
    
    
    
    	Yet all of these comments don't give Pasolini the credit he
    deserves. He was after one of Italy's leading intellectuals.
    Salo can be seen on many levels. Superficially it's a film of
    pornographic excess. A little deeper and it is an attack on the
    absolute power wielded by the Fascist regime. Some ways deeper,
    it can be seen as the Fascist's objectification of it's people,
    their transformation into tools. If the fascist use them as
    dispensable toys to wage war with, why not use them for sexual
    purposes as well? Looking yet deeper, we perhaps see another of
    Passolini's attempts, this one told outright to a reporter:
    
    
    
    		 "Sex today is the satisfaction of a social obligation, not a 
    
    		  pleasure taken against social duty. Sex in Salo is a 
    
    		  representation or a metaphor of this situation: sex as 
    
    		  obligation and ugliness."12
    
    
    
    	And still further down, perhaps at the bottom, perhaps
    Passolini's true intent, lies an attack on consumerism.
    Passolini heartily felt that the youth of his time would eat any
    old thing the government or the media would feed them. And to
    these last two, the youth were but objects waiting to be used.
    Like Sade, Passolini's film attempts to show humans objectified.
    				  
    
    
    
    	And even beyond that lies Pasolini's sheer talent as
    director. The way he presents some of  his deeper meanings is
    awe inspiring. For instance, we are shown the ending scenes
    where the young slaves are executed in the courtyard, through
    binoculars held by a Libertine. We are looking down, through a
    pair of binoculars, on torture and murder. Yet it is easy to
    disassociate yourself with these acts, for one is so distant,
    one is behind the binoculars. Or even the silent victims
    themselves, rarely putting up a fight. On this Passolini
    reflects: "If I made them likable victims, who cried and tore at
    the heart, then everyone would leave the movie house after five
    minutes"13.
    
    Art?
    
    
    
    
    
    	Even though Sade had a great influence on many 20th century
    thinkers, does that mean his work is not pornography? How much
    style and worthy content does it take for a book to be saved
    from the label of pornography? A page? Ten? 
    
    
    
    	Artaud admitted that his Theater of Cruelty came from Sade,
    most likely from Sade's 120 Days of Sodom. And if any movement
    in modern theater is most important it is Artaud's Theater of
    Cruelty. Or what of the homage by Camus, Beaudelaire,
    Battailles? What of the surrealists who saw Sade as their
    founding father? Or the famous 1930's surrealist film "L'age
    D'or" that borrowed scenes from 120 Days of Sodom? 
    
    
    
    	Indeed Sade as had a heavy influence, in art, in psychology and
    in criminology. Rarely does a trial go by where Sade is not
    somehow involved. Yet is all this enough? Does 120 Days of Sodom
    have enough value, be it philosophical, psychological or
    literary?
    
    
    
    	The answer is -of course- yes. The 120 Days of Sodom is indeed
    one of the most explicit and excessive books ever to be
    published. But so is Kraft-ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, for
    that matter so is any medical textbook. And 120 days is similar
    to a medical textbook, at least for psychologist. Indeed it is
    true the book had little worth now, but early in the century,
    when it was first discovered, the ideas in it were still new. 
    
    
    
    	On other levels the book's value is perhaps less apparent. It
    is after all a first draft, so literary style, though at times
    masterful lines do pop up, is rather scarce. The philosophical
    content is also sparse and nowhere near as complete as his other
    books. The satirical element, though obvious, is not well enough
    explored for it to save the book.
    
    
    
    	So why do people attempt to justify it? Why do I justify it?
    Could it be that there is some sadistic element involved?
    Vicarious pleasure found in others pain? Or maybe it is the
    books power to repulse. An almost universal quality about the
    book, there is little room for the titillation ascribed to
    pornography here. This book was made to shock not "turn on"...
    
    
    
    	Similarly the film Salo also has many of the same petty
    justifications running for it. But again there is that universal
    repulsive quality to the matter. Something recognized by many
    censors, some ban the film for this reason, others pass it
    through without cutting. Like the censors in Sweden  who say
    that Salo is: 
    
    
    
    		"so repugnant, that every normal human must turn away from 
    
    		 it.... What we judge isn't the film, but the effect on the 
    
    		 audience.... There will be no teenagers who will watch Salo
    
    		 and say "wow that was great, I gotta see that again"."14 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    	The generally agreed upon definition of art seems to be, art as
    something that conveys a meaning, and ideal. If we accept this
    definition, then both book and film are indeed art. For though
    they have faults, they do convey a meaning. The book wishes us
    to realize that the naked human, untamed, uncultured, is nothing
    if not repugnant; we are all as disgusting as Sade. Whereas the
    film focuses more on how we objectify people in not only a
    Fascist, but a democratic, capitalist society. 
    
    
    
    	But for all our theorizing, we forget that Sade has beaten us.
    What are we talking about art for? There is no universal
    definition of anything. Good, evil, it's all a part of nature.
    There is no art, only the perpetual movement of molecules. God
    bless the "Divine Marquis", the "freest spirit"!...
    
    
    
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    --
    Urg Burglle Splatch? Just another solution to ALL of life's problems from
    Dylan David Wagner  at: cx955@Freenet.Carleton.CA
    

    Devshed.com - Tools to build a better website
    Devshed.com - Tools to build a better website
      <<
    Previous
    Article
      >>
    Next
    Article
      /\
    Current
    Results
    Email a Friend
    Email this message!
  • Help
  • Author Profile
  • View Thread
  • Post New
  • Post Reply
  • Email Reply
  • Bookmark
  • Text Only

  • Directories  |  Classifieds  |  Yellow Pages  |  Register Your Domain Name

    New Users  ·  About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers  ·  How are we doing?
    Home  ·  Search  ·  Post  ·  My Deja News  ·  Help


    Copyright © 1995-98 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. Conditions of use.
    1