Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom

Director: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Writers: Pier Paolo Pasolini and Sergio Citti
Italy, 1975

Pasolini's infamous reworking of the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom is set in the town of Salo in fascist Italy, where four wealthy, powerful men take their pick of local boys and girls and proceed to sexually abuse and humiliate them for the duration of the film. This includes some pretty disgusting scat scenes in the evocatively named "Circle of Shit" section of the film, the source of much of its infamy, and pretty much the only thing anyone talks about when it is mentioned.

This is a shame, because despite a lack of subtlety that verges on heavy-handedness at times, Salo is a powerful political work. The four wealthy men talk of the "true anarchy" of fascism, a political system that in its disregard for life and the rule of law has allowed them to pursue the limits of sexual cruelty. It is presented as a fundamentally immoral, chaotic ideology, a point that may be hammered home a little too much for some.

But while explaining the forces that allow fascism to attain power may need delicacy and subtlety, I'm not sure that examining the philosophy behind it does. It is quite plainly wrong, and showing its cruelties and twisted logic over and over is perhaps the best way of exploring this. Pasolini endeavors to rip fascism to threads rather than look at the psychology of its attraction, and the grueling repetition of themes building to the shocking final act is an approach of applaudable clarity and simplicity.

Salo's unpleasant, often stomach-churning scenes also serve to de-sexualise pornography. Similarities with the erotic fantasy popular at the time are cosmetic and ironic, from the cast of wealthy sexual adventurers to the opulent setting, while a dose of realism is injected - that the truth of sexual slavery and prostitution is abuse and rape, the victims exploited and vulnerable, the perpetrators inadequate and dangerous. It questions the softcore fantasy of the Emmanuel films and the intellectual erotica of The Story Of O alike, showing us that there's nothing sexy about an orgy organised by middle-aged men and populated by young prostitutes.

While not one of the Video Nasty list, Salo has an interesting history with the censors, victim, in the end, to the obscenity laws, under which it was cut mercilessly. The then head of the BBFC, James Ferman, objected to proposed cuts, which he though would "'destroy the film's purpose by making the horrors less revolting, and therefore more acceptable'". He described Salo as "one of the most disturbing films ever to be seen by the Board, yet its purpose is deeply serious... it is quite certainly shocking, disgusting and revolting - even in the legal sense - but it is meant to be. It wants us to be appalled at the atrocities of which human nature is capable when absolute power is wielded corruptly". The BBFC weren't always the bad guys.

I Spit On Your Grave remake

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another Nasty on Ebay

Another original, pre-certification Video Nasty has surfaced on Ebay, this time Don't Go In The Woods. At £62.00 (so far!) it's not as outrageously expensive as SS Hell Camp was. Here's the seller's blurb -

"Here is an original pre-cert of Don't go in the woods on the video network VRO label. This was one of the films to be prosecuted under the obscene publications act in 1984. Bizzare and ridiculous film, but gory and entertaining nonetheless.

Sleeve is in good nick no rips or stickers.

Tape is not in such good shape. Top label has been ripped along the bottom egde where a sticker was removed. Surface is sticky with glue residue from the removal of sitckers. Spine label is present but is peeling back in a few places.

Playback is OK watched it from start to finish fine."

I Spit On Your Grave

Director: Meir Zarchi
Writer: Meir Zarchi
USA 1978

I Spit On Your Grave is one of the most divisive and controversial Video Nasties, accused of exploitative misogyny by some but praised as a feminist masterpiece by others. The premise is simple and effective - a young woman taking a break in the countryside to write her first novel is gang raped by a group of local men, and goes on to exact her revenge by murdering them one by one.

It is shot in the summer in a wooded, rural area of Connecticut, luscious but empty and eerie. The film style is spacious and restrained, with no music and only minimal, functional dialogue. This pared down approach is possibly due to budgetary constraints but works, giving the film an uncanny, dreamlike feel that compliments the slow build up to the first scenes of violence.

The violence takes the form of the prolonged gang rape of the central character, Jennifer Hills, in what is by far the most disturbing part of the film, the later revenge killings cartoonish in comparison. In the British version, cut by seven minutes, these scenes are abstracted somewhat, and though difficult are just about watchable. The same can't be said of the uncut version, which is very tough going indeed. The differences are interesting and reveal a little about how we cope with the way violence is portrayed - in the British version most of the violence is in close-up. Watching the original US version, it seems that a lot of the scenes that have been removed show the victim and attackers from enough distance to fit everything in the frame, a graphic approach that allows no escape.

The subject matter is of course controversial and a minefield to portray, its treatment in other films ranging from infallible in The Accused to repulsive in Death Wish 2. I Spit on Your Grave's treatment resides with the former, its unflinching directness humanised by Camille Keaton's portrayal of a woman whose independence offends her attackers, a group of losers who go on to rip all the dignity and strength from her in an act of mindless violence. The reassertion of her power in the revenge scenes isn't as nuanced but does spell out a strong moral stance for the film, one some commentators have gone so far as to call feminist.

It isn't clear whether this is really the case. Director Meir Zarchi said he was inspired to make the film after helping a real-life rape victim and experiencing the frustration of her dealings with the police first hand, which could be seen as a vigilante rather than feminist approach. Jennifer Hills' revenge is also just a logical path for a thriller to take, and a premise this simple hardly needs political roots. Against this is Keaton's intelligent performance and the film's willingness to tackle such a difficult subject head-on.

I'm not sure how much intention matters though when the result is this good. The clear, simple style paradoxically makes an enigmatic and complex film that has been debated over since its release. It's an example of a horror film doing an important job, presenting a controversial situation in all its terrible detail and leaving the viewer to untangle the moral ambiguities it raises. I Spit On Your Grave isn't as technically accomplished as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or as groundbreaking as Cannibal Holocaust, but its content makes it every bit as important.

The Killer Inside Me

Michael Winterbottom's new thriller The Killer Inside Me has generated a fair bit of controversy due to its graphic depiction of violence against women, seeing it accused of misogyny by Charlotte Higgins and distasteful sensationalism by David Cox, while being applauded for its honest potrayal of domestic violence by Hadley Freeman. The film split Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode on their Radio 5 Live show, with Kermode defending its honesty while Mayo rather impressively threw Winterbottom by accusing him of misogyny in a live interview.

It is a problematic film, mainly because it seems to miss the point. While its main subject matter appears to be violence against women, apart from two brutal scenes and a bit of psychopath childhood background stuff the film concentrates on how the central character evades capture. This sort of thriller plotting makes the film work as a viewing experience but has absolutely nothing to do with the violence at its core, and indeed belittles it.

It is difficult to work out whether Winterbottom is trying to say something about violence against women and failing, or filming a straight thriller story with a nod towards it for controversy's sake. That there is some ambiguity should preclude any moralising, but the violence depicted is so appalling and the masochistic attitude of the victims so odd you feel Winterbottom has an obligation to at least provide some reasoning. This isn't forthcoming in either the film or his rather evasive interviews.