Most Disturbing Film I have ever seen

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I see your point, I'm just saying that shock value for it's own sake has a place.

Exactly, look at the entire "mondo" genre of films. The historical predecessors to Faces of Death and their ilk (including the whole "fake half the footage" idea) - these served no purpose other than to show you "the darker side of society" for about 90 minutes. And when I say none I mean absolutely none, the context was various footage (often sloppily) stitched together with some stray narration so viewers can say "Wow, look at how screwy the world can be!"

 

...and way to make me feel left out as the only one now who hasn't seen Salo .

 

Oh, and on even further of a side-note, several (in)famous mondo films are finally making their way to Region 1 DVD later this year courtesy of Blue Underground. I'm particularly interested in Farewell Uncle Tom, a mondo take on the slave trade.

[Guest Annoyed Grunt]

I saw Salo with friends while drunk. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but the alcohol really helped out there.

[Guest godthedog]

I see your point, I'm just saying that shock value for it's own sake has a place.

Exactly, look at the entire "mondo" genre of films. The historical predecessors to Faces of Death and their ilk (including the whole "fake half the footage" idea) - these served no purpose other than to show you "the darker side of society" for about 90 minutes. And when I say none I mean absolutely none, the context was various footage (often sloppily) stitched together with some stray narration so viewers can say "Wow, look at how screwy the world can be!"

 

...and way to make me feel left out as the only one now who hasn't seen Salo .

 

Oh, and on even further of a side-note, several (in)famous mondo films are finally making their way to Region 1 DVD later this year courtesy of Blue Underground. I'm particularly interested in Farewell Uncle Tom, a mondo take on the slave trade.

i would argue that 'faces of death' and 'mondo cane' have no place.

[Guest EMAXSAUN]

Well if you enjoy faces of death you will enjoy Salo.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

i would argue that 'faces of death' and 'mondo cane' have no place.

As anything resembling proper film I'd agree with you (I mean at least roughies and the like feigned a plot between all the loops), but as IDRM mentioned earlier, the stuff is entertaining, to those who watched them on their original releases for a "cheap, sick thrill" or to cynical viewers watching today who see much more convincing "fake violence" in modern film and watch to laugh.

 

This of course, brings up the argument of film as an art with proper form vs film solely as entertainment (whether that be comedy, summer blockbuster, pornography, or cheap exploitation). They're two totally different types of film, but IMO both are valid. The only thing I dislike is when film solely as entertainment tries to pass itself off as art, which Salo did (apparently, I still with hold final judgment until I see it), but Mondo Cane, to its credit (if that's considered credit) did not.

[Guest Anorak]

I probably wouldn't go out of my way to watch 'Salo' even though these controversial films naturally make most of us at least mildly curious. I doubt I would find it more offensive than some Italain horror films I've seen from the 70's or early 80's (not Argento really) which are problematic in many ways.

[Guest mach7]

This is a sick ass movie, that shows how cruel humans can really be. I would only advise watching it if you are into sick stuff like this.

That's a pretty narrow minded point of view. One doesn't have to be "into sick stuff like this" to enjoy a movie that presents a valid statement about society.

Well, I have to go back on myself here. My girlfriend and I rented the movie a few weeks back and man, it wasn't the most disgusting movie ever made. It was one of the WORST movies ever made.

 

Horrible acting. Not to mention poorly written and full of continuity errors and just plain old crappy "storytelling."

 

The movie was hardly as disgusting as the person who started this thread made it out to be. It should have said "SALO is one of the stupidest films ever made! You should not see this, because you will risk the loss of brain cells!"

 

This one character, a Duke or something, would always chime in with these stupid jokes that made no sense. Stuff like, "What sound does a Polack make when he jumps in the lake? SPLOOSH!" WTF does that even mean?!

 

Good lord, people, avoid this movie at all costs. Save yourself the $3.25 or whatever it would cost to rent it.

[Guest Galactic Gigolo]

You want to know what film is even more disturbing?

 

[Guest mach7]

You want to know what film is even more disturbing?

 

LMAO!

[Guest evenflowDDT]

This one character, a Duke or something, would always chime in with these stupid jokes that made no sense. Stuff like, "What sound does a Polack make when he jumps in the lake? SPLOOSH!" WTF does that even mean?!

*B to the Izzump*

 

Well, I finally made my way down to the library today and watched Salo, and while I have to disagree with it being the most disgusting film ever (like many "most XXXX films ever", the film doesn't really give you enough of a connection to the victim to empathize with them, thus exploiting their torments so the only way to see them is through a pleasurable/intrigued eye...such is film), I also disagree with it being the most stupid film ever, and I also disagree with Criterion's description that the film is "a blistering critique of fascism and idealism".

 

To me, the film is commentary on the backwards nature of "extreme" pleasure. Simply put, few of the actions taken by the Fascists made any logical sense (e.g. "murdering" the "finest behind" when they went to such painstaking measures earlier in the film to screen the most "pure" victims), and aside from a few instances, though the Fascists spoke of it, they never seemed like they were really pleasured. Add to this the fact that they never for a second even thought about pleasuring their victims, in fact, they seemed to want to deprive everyone of pleasure, from trivializing the Sra. Maggi's stories, to driving the piano player to suicide. Yet at the same time, they made base assumptions about what pleasure is, what disgust is, and applied them generally to the whole group; it'd be interesting if one of the victims had been a masochist or enjoyed eating shit because then it would cease to be "arduous" and the rest of the victims would get off easy for some new "torture". It seems that the authority figures in the film think they understand pleasure, but really know nothing of it or how to experience it. All they know is society's preconceived notions of digust, and forcing them onto the victims. But then, if nobody's receiving pleasure, and nobody but the Fascists and the audience knows of the challenging of society via forced disgust, what's the point? I guess this is where the "blistering critique of fascism" comes in... OMG FASCISTS ARE EVIL AND FASCIST AND HURT PEOPLES FOR NO REASON BAN PLZ~!

 

I don't fully understand it (and I'm actually kicking myself for not having read Sade's original work first, as that might help a bit). But I'm not disgusted by it, and it's much better made, from both a strictly cinematic standpoint and its openness for interpretation, then a Pink Flamingos, a Gummo or a similar "most disgusting film ever".

[Guest godthedog]

de sade won't help you at all. there's no depth to it, it's all just a bunch of anecdotes about self-pleasure and shit-eating. unlike pasolini, he makes no attempt to use any deeper themes to hold it together, more akin to a straight-up S+M film than an art film.

 

i'd hardly call it "depraved" (especially compared to de sade), but 'venus in furs' by loeopold von sacher-masoch (de sade's S+M counterpart) is a MUCH more interesting study of strange sexual behavior and power relations. it has things like psychology & character studies that make it a lot more readable than 'the 120 days of sodom'. it probably would've made a much better movie about fascism & its victims, too.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

de sade won't help you at all. there's no depth to it, it's all just a bunch of anecdotes about self-pleasure and shit-eating. unlike pasolini, he makes no attempt to use any deeper themes to hold it together, more akin to a straight-up S+M film than an art film.

That's too bad about de Sade's original work, but from what else I've read of him (which is only the Gothic Tales collection of short stories), I can understand how the hope for any further insight is just a pipedream. It's just that I try and make a habit of not watching film adaptations of novels without reading the source first (despite the fact that in many cases, like Requiem for a Dream and [embarrassingly] A Clockwork Orange, I don't realize there was a source novel until after viewing).

 

While on the topic of Venus in Furs, do you know anything about this film adaptation? (scroll to the bottom of the page) There are several other exploitation films with the title, but I think this is the first to address the actual novel.