my final thoughts on Salo
Many of the truths I found in the film seem self-evident, perhaps even embarrassingly so. Evil is bad. Compassion/love/mercy is good. Exploitation is wrong. Yet it is because these truths are self-evident that they are so profound. Many of the greatest truths are so obvious that we tend to miss or even ignore them. And it is because they are self-evident that we so often and so badly need to be reminded of them. If film is an art form and capable of revealing truth, then Salo is the purest reminder I know. But then again, I can only speak for myself.
posted by Clint @ 1:28 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Clint, forgive me for starting another thread, but is there compassion, love, and mercy in Salo? I feel that their presence is absolutely crucial to the success of the film, and could radically shift my perspective of Pasolini's work in general.
"Clint, forgive me for starting another thread, but is there compassion, love, and mercy in Salo?"
No, but that's the point. In order to achieve power and become master, one must have subjects. And, according to de Sade, in order to be a true master one's victims must exist to be victimized. If they ask for mercy, you sqeeze harder, and become even more encouraged to inflict pain. Love and compassion are unacceptable if one is to take the role of master seriously and to its logical conclusion. It is a twisted and perverse ideology, but that is the point of the film -- to reveal the perversions of de Sade's ideas, and fascism, and capitalist exploitation of the poor. When one is faced with the realities of evil, hopefully they will be propelled to the good.
The more you attempt to explicate the meaning of this film, the less profound it seems. I am now almost completely convinced that as an intellectual exercise, Salo has nothing of interest to say, because it is devoid of moral categories (to borrow from Andrew Coffin on an entirely different film). Because of this, the rampant sadism in Pasolini's work is quickly abstracted from context, and comes to signify very little.
If Salo is silent on such matters as compassion, love, and mercy, how can you be convinced of Pasolini's attitude toward them? I would venture to guess that the resounding obviousness of the director's "evil is bad" mantra only seems profound because it is given such an extreme presentation. It's easy to wallow in filth for two hours—it takes genuine courage to admit the complexity of goodness.
You're missing the point. This is not an examination of goodness, nor does it need to be. It is a cry out to show the realities of what happens with we exploit people, when we take advantage of people for our own desires. It encourages its audience to see people as human beings, worthy of dignity. You are right when you say that it takes courage to admit the complexity of goodness. But it also takes courage, in a world where we are all guilty of sin and moral perversion, to take our "innocent" lusts and our sinful desires to their logical conclusion rather than attempting to justify them as "natural urges". To exploit a fellow human being is not merely to gain something through dubious means, but to reduce that person to sub-human status. We are also reminded that in exploiting people, we are not only taking/stealing something from them, but we are also destroying our soul. Victim and victimizer become reduced to equals, because one loses his body the other his soul. It's a bold statement that I believe Pasolini does intend.
Allow me to make one final point. I am not making my arguments in the hopes of convincing anyone to go see this film. I am merely describing my observations and my reaction to a film that, I believe, may have more worth and value than it is often given credit for, or that may be clear at first glance.
Since the majority of our discussion has taken place outside the blogosphere, I see no reason in perpetuating it here. But I would like to conclude by suggesting that if Pasolini wanted to make a serious moral inquiry, he ought to have gone further—yes, even further—than he did with Salo. In regards to film, or art in general, enough is never enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home