- It seems clear that there are three ways to read Pasolini’s film.
- First—just the content and sort of description of what happens– this description from IMDB sums it up “In World War II Italy, four fascist libertines round up nine adolescent boys and girls and subject them to one hundred and twenty days of physical, mental and sexual torture”. This film is very controversial and for good reason. The content is hard to watch. Whether you admire the film or not, I don’t see how anyone could argue with the depths of evil depicted here and this should act as a warning for many—as many people will not want to watch the film, and many who start may be unable to finish (apparently Ebert never saw it, he was a big admirer of Teorema from Pasolini and had a copy of this film but from what I read he never did end up watching it).
- The second reading is speaking as to why Pasolini is doing this. Pasolini made angry films, middle-finger cinema as I call it, and he is not alone (von Trier, Bunuel)— he’s using a hammer to drive home a point about evils in this world. These four villains in the film are what he hates most- and hate is important to Pasolini– and he makes them do the worst things imaginable in this film—and he doesn’t pull any punches.
- Lastly, the film’s visual magnificence and formal aplomb seem like something that cannot be debated either. Look at the page here- 12 shots, most of these held for a long time. There are easily another 20-40 of these shots throughout the film (some of them available as screengrabs but the nudity or content just isn’t something, I want to share here). It is a breathtakingly beautiful film- indisputable.

undoubtedly one of the most handsome, painterly films ever made
- This is Pasolini’s last film- it was supposed to be the first in a three-part series (trilogy of death)- he was murdered weeks before the premiere. Pasolini had his debut in 1961 Accattone– one of his strongest efforts, and Teorema is a strong candidate, but with the astonishing artistry on display in Salo– it is clearly his magnum opus. If there’s doubt, it is because many of his films are still not easily available (I was able to get to six of his films here during my 2019/2020 study)
- There are many admirers of the film (it has a lofty ranking on TSPDT) including Fassbinder, Haneke, Gaspar Noé—sort of makes sense—these are accomplished filmmakers- often vicious filmmakers—as I said I don’t know for sure but I would have to guess Bunuel and von Trier were admirers as well
- Rigorously set-up four sections with titles– Antinferno (antechamber of hell) is the gathering of these children, then the three “circle of” sections mirroring Dante’s Inferno and the chambers of Hell

such formal cohesiveness- variations on this shot in the mirror done again and again–

almost every arrangement has a double– every point a counterpoint
- Morricone’s mockingly jazzy score and dissolve transitions early in the film
- Like say Eisenstein’s Strike– Pasolini uses casting here to make his four villains (these four make Hans Landa or Edvard the stepfather in Fanny and Alexander look appealing by comparison) as irreputable as possible (Aldo Valletti with his crossed eyes)—“his excellency” “my lord”- we have the Duke, The Bishop, The Magistrate and The President—all bourgeois in suits—Pasolini wants the purest version of evil.

Pasolini wants the purest version of evil– making just about every other version of evil portrayed on screen look modest by comparison

the gorgeous wallpaper here used for the piano player’s big scene

repeated shots of characters in profile looking out the window in jaw-droppingly splendid interior-designed arrangements
- Throughout the film the compositions are immaculate. These wideshots of the rooms are like a series of paintings (Roy Andersson comes to mind a little). The salon room (I think it is also called the “orgy room”) is just about as handsomely mounted a frame as is conceivable. The symmetry, (at the 24-minute mark is a good example), the coloring (often slate- and Pasolini matches the wardrobe to the lighting fixtures to the drapes to the carpet)— it is presented in wideshots and it is Greenaway meets Wes Anderson meets Jodorowsky and The Holy Mountain (the only one of these references that predates the film)

the symmetry, the lighting– tableau paintings in wideshot

the salon room again and again– there are easily 30-50 of these arrangements– it is Greenaway, Wes Anderson, The Holy Mountain— Pasolini even seems very concerned with numbering like Greenaway

career-best work from most of the talented crew behind the camera Pasolini assembled– these are the artists who also worked with Leone, Fellini, Scorsese
- Salo is an angry parable – Pasolini takes the French novel by Marquis de Sade in 1785, uproots it and sets it in fascist Italy (town of Salo) in 1944. Salo is where Mussolini held is capital. Pasolini’s brother died there.

essentially two hours with this compositions

this film is simply not for everyone– these are essentially my notes on the film made public but you should read up sufficiently on the film and prepare yourself before deciding to watch

Reoccurring wideshots of the Da Vinci’s first supper-like shot here- Pasolini did this in 1962’s Mamma Roma
- The crew assembled here by Pasolini has to be recognized and lauded—I mentioned Morricone already (I wouldn’t consider this one of his best—which is no insult), but the cinematography and set decoration is exemplary- from Osvaldo Desideri (set decoration) and Tonino Delli Colli (DP)—this film clearly impressed Leone as he used both on Once Upon a Time in America. The production design is by Dante Ferretti – who is a three-time Academy Award winner and worked on The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Age of Innocence, Titus, Casino—the costume work is genius- done by Danilo Donati (Romeo and Juliet- 1968, Amarcord, Flash Gordon, Fellini Satyricon). This is the best work or tied for the best for all involved aside from Morricone.
- The way Pasolini tells the story is very methodical—there are the titles, the horrific storytelling by the older women with the piano playing in the salon—and then there is the carrying out of the torture– some of it I can’t even type out (with Pasolini daring you to look away, holding your face in it – blunt force)
- The wallpaper use is sublime throughout but in particular the wild wallpaper used when the pianist jumps out of the window
- Pasolini uses doorways like Visconti or Ozu here—frames within frames

doorways as a frame within a frame again and again- one wonders if this work inspired Pawlikowski for Ida
- A Masterpiece
Damn, MP? You had it all the way down at HR when you did your Pasolini page with Accattone as an MS and The Gospel According to St. Matthew as an HR (which surprised me given its reputation, though you had mentioned you only saw it once; have you seen it again?), Teorema as well wasn’t even listed which also surprised me given it’s one of Pasolini’s best-known films. Are you doing a study of his work at the moment?
Good work here. You have impressed me.
Among the community of cinephiles this is the meme movie, but it is a great art movie.
So i know what failed, i was not prepared. I have not seen any Roy Andersson movies.
Where would you recommend to start?
This film reminds me a bit the shining with that obsession with symmetry.
Sorry if I ask a lot of questions, there is a lot to unpack.
I love the counterpoint, this type of interpretation makes the film more satisfactory. In Accattone the interpretation of the angel made me admire the film more.
As i said a shame, poor Pasolini died for this, it would have been interesting to see what other things he would have achieved, you call it his best movie.
This is the last Pasolini movie, did you manage to see the others? were they not archivable? Certainly missing Pasolini films without review like The Decameron, Arabian Nights
So when nothing interesting happens, i mean acts of torture, as the final act, for me it does not add anything cinematographic.
After this visit, do you agree with position # 191?
Also how high would Pasolini land now with 3 MP, certainly an author.
I was really impressed with your review, i’m “anxious” to see this again haha.
Finally, what do other users of the site think about this movie?
This film is always discussed among cinephiles although for the most part they focus on the controversy of the film.
@Aldo- I’ve never watched a Pasolini film. I know he is known for his distance and framing as well as the subjects he deals with. I’ve heard of course of Salo I’m aware of some of its content, but I can’t speak for something I haven’t watched. From what I know, I can see he has clearly influenced Haneke, and I am a big admirer of Haneke’s work (the part of it I’ve seen anyway). I appreciate the austere coldness and I like how stern he tends to be – it echoes some Brecht and I think it magnifies the impact of his films’ shocking content. I wouldn’t know how I would react to Salo, I need to watch it at some point though there are some others I’d like to get to first. Though I have to say that I agree with the only point of Drake’s review I’ve managed to get a grasp of: how it is admired by Haneke, Fassbinder and Noe. Haha. It shows a bit doesn’t it? There is one of those criterion interviews with Gaspar Noe where he takes a look at the closet and the thumbnail shows him holding Salo and I think it’s fair to say it’s very unsurprising.
You know if you watch this as a Lanthimos-esque absurdist comedy it’s actually pretty hilarious up until the last 5 minutes or so, and even then the continued absurdity of the situation can still lead to some good laughs. I was expecting something much worse given the reputation but damn this was quite a ride. You can really see how this influenced von Trier’s entire style (especially at the very beginning as they’re rounding up the victims with the rapid cuts and handheld shaky camera movement; not to even start on his choice of subject matter), as well as Gilliam, particularly in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. If you told me that Pasolini was actually a creation of Ingsoc who never really existed and this film was really directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky I’d probably believe you. As good as this film is, there are moments where it just dies – stops completely in its tracks – particularly whenever Signora Vaccari is telling one of her stories; Signora Maggi’s were better imo. Honestly I’m kinda (not really) questioning my sanity right now. I genuinely did not think this film was exceptionally (emphasis on exceptionally) difficult to watch – not that it was the easiest ride in the amusement park – and I’m not sure what that says.
MP. I truly can see myself watching this a second time with relative ease in the future, same with Irreversible or even Crash in all honesty (not with “relative ease,” there, however), which I’m not sure I’d say about Caché or Requiem for a Dream. I thought those were much harder to watch, especially Caché like I said gave me a severe headache from the stress of watching it.