In starting this review I feel I must begin by addressing the reputation of this film for that is certainly the one thing stewing in most peoples brains when they hear the notorious word Salo mentioned.  Salo is not as easy film to watch, an impossible film to enjoy, and one packed so full of degrading, disgusting, gut-wrenching images that one cannot be blamed for wanting to turn a blind eye.  When confronted by such atrocities, it becomes much easier to deny their existence, forget you ever saw them or that they ever happened.  How then does a film made to repel the viewer have any redeeming value or demand to be seen by anyone who would refer to themselves as a 'film buff'?  Well, that is the difficult task of which I set out to do.

Salo is based on the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom but its setting is fascist Italy in the ending days of World War II.  The film's three act structure - beginning with the "Circle of Obsession", followed by the "Circle of Shit", and finally ending with the "Circle of Blood" - draws us slowly into its horrors and is unflinching in its portrayal of both the birth of fascist thought and its inevitable destruction.  The film begins with four wealthy aristocrats, complete with a brutally loyal group of soldiers, kidnapping 18 children (9 males, 9 females) and taking them to their castle in Salo, Italy where there is no escape.  In this self-contained world, only the stated rules apply - sexual activities with a member of the opposite sex and any religious activities for example are punishable by the removal of a limb or other severe punishment up to the discretion of the four aristocrats - and only the illogical exists.  Death is a privilege not granted for in order to have victims, they must be alive.

For 120 days, the victims at Salo endure the very same torture, degradation, and humiliation that we as viewers are forced to watch for 115 minutes.  But to boil the film down to a piece of exploitive filmmaking made only to repulse us would be to miss the point almost entirely.  In portraying the very roots of an evil system of thought, Pasolini chose not to spare us from the gory details rather forcing us to become silent observers of the horror and constantly force us to look inside ourselves to find some kind of answers as to why we react the way we do and realize that what appears on screen in front of us was and can again (in the allegorical sense) become reality.

The opening act "Circle of Obsession" lays out the rules of Salo and with long, distanced shots helps us become accustomed to what really goes on.  Every day there is "story time" in which the aristocrats and their victims gather around one of four women, depending on the day, to listen to horrendous stories of sadistic lust or devious violence.  As they please, the aristocrats may rape (sodomy is a form of death without dying here as it is both an exertion of authority and a sexual act of pain that does not lead to the creation of life) or torture the victims, getting their delight solely from the displeasure of their victims.  They feed off cries of pain and sadness feeding the void inside them that will ultimately lead to the destruction of everyone and everything around them.  The way Pasolini films these early scenes is quite brilliant, keeping us at a distance allowing us to see the big picture.  The castle is a place of decadence and wealth, the women clothed in furs and the most gorgeous dresses available and the men in the finest of suits.  The hypocrisy is apparent because it is right in our faces since Pasolini has quickly plunged beneath the surface, unmasking the veil that fooled so many people in the 1930s and 40s.

The second act "Circle of Shit" becomes much more disturbing as we move away from the big picture towards the aristocrat's way of thinking.  There is one scene is particular that could be used to sum this up.  After having a "contest" in which they judge which of the boys or girls has the nicest ass in which they said the winner would have the privilege of being shot dead, a soldier's places a gun to the winning boys head.  After the trigger is pulled, we hear only a soft click followed by one of the aristocrats saying they would only be happy if he could kill them a thousand times.  It not nearly enough to kill their victims - they must break them and turn them into soulless machines willing to obey their every command.  The men feed off victims and the only way to have victims is to keep them alive.  Scene after scene Pasolini takes us further into their minds and further into the sickness.  The camera becomes uncomfortably close (not that the long shots helped much at hiding the terror) and we are trapped in this prison with them.   There is no escape until, unlike the aristocrats, Pasolini delivers us from Salo as the credits role.

Before that however, the last and in my opinion most brilliant act "Circle of Blood" must come.  Here there are no story hours, no feasts, only the true horrors that ultimately manifest under the tyranny of any fascist regime - torture, gore, blood, and death.  There are scenes of several children betraying one another, possibly to save themselves from punishment but more likely because they are so programmed to obey that their only instinct is to attempt to please their captors.  In this stage the aristocrats begin to become the victims.  They begin to partake in the very same suffering and degradation that they originally got off on seeing.  The entire system begins breaking down.  Like a house of cards, fascism is a building with a hollow center that must by its very nature destroy itself and everything it has already sucked up.  As the 120 days come to an end, it is time for the children to fully pay for their sins and the rules they broke.  The torture is brutal and almost unendurable especially with the way Pasolini filmed it.  One aristocrat and a fully aroused soldier watch the torture and eventual executions from the top floor of the mansion.  We do not hear the screams, the cries, the pain, the suffering.  We see, along with the aristocrat, the suffering below in silence through a pair of binoculars.  This is obviously his last moment of joy and fortunately our last moments of suffering before the film fades black. 

There are two claims, both of which I feel are false, that are often made about Salo: 1) The film goes far overboard in its display of disgusting and offensive behavior and 2) The film ultimately becomes the very evil it despises.  I'll first address the concern of offensive imagery.  There is NO doubt the Salo will cause you to turn your head in disgust, cover your eyes, walk away for a while, or possibly stop the film and never bother to finish.  It is a difficult film to watch but it is one that demands you to think.  As in reality, intelligent, conscious thought is the only thing that can destroy such evil.  You have a choice - either sit back getting sucked into the imagery, reacting in disgust and forget you ever saw it OR confront what you are watching head on and deal with the issues presented.  Only if you are willing to confront your own feelings on the film as well as its content, will Salo be a remotely rewarding experience.  Like the Germans (and MANY others in the 30s and 40s) you can watch in silence and try to forget it (this was my immediate reaction right after the film) or you may choose to acknowledge it, interact, think, theorize, and learn.  Everything is relative and what is now considered atrocious has and may again become the norm, so there is as much, if not more, to deal with in your own reactions than in Salo.

The second offense often claimed by detractors is that Salo eventually becomes that which it despises, that is to say it becomes fascist.  However, it is important to note that while the film is depicting the birth, life, and death of a fascist system, it does not attempt to control or overpower the viewer through propaganda or any other means.  In fact the film constantly gives you room for free thought, never forcing you to agree or accept what is on the screen.  It only asks that you confront it.  When dealing with such a subject, Pasolini felt it necessary to take this idea (along with all the imagery inherent in an allegorical exploration of it) to its illogical extreme.  This is one of the films biggest strengths - it's unwillingness to compromise.  Pasolini was willing to take on the censors and the political entities that wished the film never saw the light of day and he did it with such bravura that he should be commended.  Keep in mind he was murdered only weeks after the completion of this film.  It was a male prostitute that he was supposedly killed by, but it does seem suspicious that after completing what may be the strongest, most important political statement ever captured on film that he was murdered only weeks later.  Maybe certain people wanted him silenced or maybe not.  As the film lets you draw your own conclusions, so will I.