Did Pasolini really "wallow in his own sensationalism"?
With Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salo," the long-disputed issue of the extent to which a filmmaker can interpret a story on screen has been put to the ultimate test.And when "extreme" cases do happen, do the censors become "morally" justified in interfering with the filmmaker's "creative freedom"?
There are a good number of films that can be used to illustrate the issues raised:Alejandro Jodorowsky's "Santa Sangre" can be a case in point regarding the subject of violence and gore (a mentally-disturbed serial murderer and his domineering mother, with surreal images and subtle attacks on the Catholic faith),while Nagisa Oshima's "In the Realm of the Senses" can be a point of reference regarding the subject of sex and nudity (a couple---a geisha and a tradesman---who has practically made sexual intercourse the be-all and end-all of their lives, to the point of obsession and possessiveness).
On the other hand, Pasolini's film shows both "flesh and blood."
The opening credits, with the accompaniment of a soft-sounding music, and the opening shot of a calm body of water, with a palace (turns out to belong to the high officials) viewed from afar, are deceiving:what follows from thereon is definitely not soothing to one's senses.Set in World War II Italy, where Benito Mussolini's Nazi-Fascist regime is very much in power, the film depicts the ways in which the dictator's high-standing minions are capable of degrading and brutalizing the citizens,particularly the youth, just to satisfy some perverted and homo-erotic desires.
The film is divided in four parts (or "chapters," if one may call them so, since the film, it's significant to say, is based on a novel by Marquis de Sade, a controversial and provocative man of letters during his time),where each one represents the stages in which the young, innocent and gentle are deliberately and systematically corrupted and destroyed by the supposed-to-be leaders and guardians of the state---it's like hungry wolves feeding on gentle lambs.
"Antechamber of Hell" shows how a number of young people, most of them beautiful and fresh, are rounded up, brought to the palace and oriented with the "rules and regulations" that are to govern their existence within the chamber of power---upon hearing them, one gets the impression that this might just be what hell really is.
"Circle of Obsessions" has the state officials weaving tales of eroticism and sensuality to arouse themselves and the youth into making some of the most perverted sexual acts---unabashed nudity, autoeroticism, hedonism, lasciviousness and homoeroticism are strewn all over.
"Circle of Shit" illustrates a further debasement:feeding on others' and one's own excrement (there's even a scene where one of the officials lets a young woman urinate right into his mouth) as, if I understand it right, a gesture of wholly accepting the "evil" in all of us---the "stench," to be taken literally and figuratively.The images may truly repel the viewers:a graphic act of defecation, close-up shots of feces (and what a heap!) and the notoriously unforgettable mock wedding reception.
Finally, "Circle of Blood" takes the viewers to "salo"---the punishing ground, where the young boys and girls who broke some of the "rules and regulations" are "taught their lesson" by the men in power.Again, this part is excruciating to watch, for the viewers become witness to some of the most brutally painful acts of punishment:how about an eye being removed, just to give a sample?
Now, was Pasolini "guilty" of, to use film critic Leonard Maltin's words, "wallowing in his own sensationalism"? I've yet to read the book on which the film is based, but someone told me that the Italian filmmaker was just being faithful to De Sade's work.Meaning to say, Pasolini tried as much as possible to express visually what the French novelist expressed in words.True, "Salo" in its entirety is an extremely offensive and shocking film, the kind to which the moviegoing adage "Just sit back and relax" won't definitely apply.But then, isn't that the kind of response that the film's theme and images should elicit from the viewers in the first place?
Not to be disoriented and enraged by the lowest depths into which man's (ab)use of power and satisfaction of primitive cravings and desires can plunge is one of the most absurd things that can ever happen.We should really appreciate artists (directors, novelists, poets, etc.) who have the courage and commitment (an abundance of them, it must be) to explore "extreme possiblities" inherent in human life.Life isn't always like "a box full of chocolates"---sweet and comforting---is it?
If it ever happens that "the people concerned" get alarmed, raise concerns about a film and eventually mangle, if not ban, it, it may only prove that the film hits right where it should.
With Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salo," the long-disputed issue of the extent to which a filmmaker can interpret a story on screen has been put to the ultimate test.And when "extreme" cases do happen, do the censors become "morally" justified in interfering with the filmmaker's "creative freedom"?
There are a good number of films that can be used to illustrate the issues raised:Alejandro Jodorowsky's "Santa Sangre" can be a case in point regarding the subject of violence and gore (a mentally-disturbed serial murderer and his domineering mother, with surreal images and subtle attacks on the Catholic faith),while Nagisa Oshima's "In the Realm of the Senses" can be a point of reference regarding the subject of sex and nudity (a couple---a geisha and a tradesman---who has practically made sexual intercourse the be-all and end-all of their lives, to the point of obsession and possessiveness).
On the other hand, Pasolini's film shows both "flesh and blood."
The opening credits, with the accompaniment of a soft-sounding music, and the opening shot of a calm body of water, with a palace (turns out to belong to the high officials) viewed from afar, are deceiving:what follows from thereon is definitely not soothing to one's senses.Set in World War II Italy, where Benito Mussolini's Nazi-Fascist regime is very much in power, the film depicts the ways in which the dictator's high-standing minions are capable of degrading and brutalizing the citizens,particularly the youth, just to satisfy some perverted and homo-erotic desires.
The film is divided in four parts (or "chapters," if one may call them so, since the film, it's significant to say, is based on a novel by Marquis de Sade, a controversial and provocative man of letters during his time),where each one represents the stages in which the young, innocent and gentle are deliberately and systematically corrupted and destroyed by the supposed-to-be leaders and guardians of the state---it's like hungry wolves feeding on gentle lambs.
"Antechamber of Hell" shows how a number of young people, most of them beautiful and fresh, are rounded up, brought to the palace and oriented with the "rules and regulations" that are to govern their existence within the chamber of power---upon hearing them, one gets the impression that this might just be what hell really is.
"Circle of Obsessions" has the state officials weaving tales of eroticism and sensuality to arouse themselves and the youth into making some of the most perverted sexual acts---unabashed nudity, autoeroticism, hedonism, lasciviousness and homoeroticism are strewn all over.
"Circle of Shit" illustrates a further debasement:feeding on others' and one's own excrement (there's even a scene where one of the officials lets a young woman urinate right into his mouth) as, if I understand it right, a gesture of wholly accepting the "evil" in all of us---the "stench," to be taken literally and figuratively.The images may truly repel the viewers:a graphic act of defecation, close-up shots of feces (and what a heap!) and the notoriously unforgettable mock wedding reception.
Finally, "Circle of Blood" takes the viewers to "salo"---the punishing ground, where the young boys and girls who broke some of the "rules and regulations" are "taught their lesson" by the men in power.Again, this part is excruciating to watch, for the viewers become witness to some of the most brutally painful acts of punishment:how about an eye being removed, just to give a sample?
Now, was Pasolini "guilty" of, to use film critic Leonard Maltin's words, "wallowing in his own sensationalism"? I've yet to read the book on which the film is based, but someone told me that the Italian filmmaker was just being faithful to De Sade's work.Meaning to say, Pasolini tried as much as possible to express visually what the French novelist expressed in words.True, "Salo" in its entirety is an extremely offensive and shocking film, the kind to which the moviegoing adage "Just sit back and relax" won't definitely apply.But then, isn't that the kind of response that the film's theme and images should elicit from the viewers in the first place?
Not to be disoriented and enraged by the lowest depths into which man's (ab)use of power and satisfaction of primitive cravings and desires can plunge is one of the most absurd things that can ever happen.We should really appreciate artists (directors, novelists, poets, etc.) who have the courage and commitment (an abundance of them, it must be) to explore "extreme possiblities" inherent in human life.Life isn't always like "a box full of chocolates"---sweet and comforting---is it?
If it ever happens that "the people concerned" get alarmed, raise concerns about a film and eventually mangle, if not ban, it, it may only prove that the film hits right where it should.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét