great tip giamma, wonder why i didnt see it listed ... I bet Salo will be filled, but the others actually look more interesting...since few have seen them in recent years.

There are a couple of interesting threads in the De Sade Tribe marquisdesade.tribe.net/ which (inevitably) discuss SALO, and (just as inevitably) Pasolini.

I saw SALO in its original release in USA -- and what a strange release it had! Here's what I know about the matter. Since I'm recalling from twenty-year-old memories, I may have got some facts blurred -- feel free to offer corrections!

There are two versions of SALO.

Pasolini intended SALO to be ugly -- hard to watch.

Pasolini had a conflict with the producer of the movie: the producer (Alberto Grimaldi, I think) wanted a visually-seductive, attractive piece of soft-core porn; Pasolini (a Communist, and passionate opponent of Italian Fascism and of its contemporary successors) wanted to make a rebarbative, if not actually unwatchable, account of Fascism, using 120 Days as a template (Salo was, I believe, a seat of Fascist government in the waning days of World War Two).

One of the compromises was to film with color negative film-stock, but to strike two prints: a black-and-white print to Pasolini's specification, and a color print for the producer's purposes.

At the time of its release, this film was so scandalous that although it was premiered at the New York Film Festival, afterwards, the Festival's organization, The Film Society of Lincoln Center (FSLC), apologized for showing it (SALO had the distinction of being the only film for which FSLC had ever apologized).

Indeed even the U.S. distributor did not wish to be associated with it: the names of the distributors were omitted from posters and advertisements for screenings.

Autre temps, autre moeurs -- times have changed . . . or have they?

A U S T I N ,

Editor,
Cinema Minima: Personal Digital Cinema: news for movie-makers
www.cinemaminima.com/

I'm surprised anyone would praise Pasolini for his 'technical abilities.' Most of his films are on the sloppy side, technically speaking, which may have been the result of neo-realistic influence. 'The Decameron,' as I remember it, and it's been a while, is very rough in feel, with non-professional actors in many or maybe even most roles. It's a step up from 'The Canterbury Tales,' which is pretty poor, and a step down from 'Arabian Nights,' the best of that trilogy, despite some cheesy special effects. Still, that film is more than redeemed by the photography.

I'm not dumping on Pasolini. He's not one of my favorite filmmakers but I certainly think he's worthwhile -- especially his poetry. But his technical abilities -- that's just not something that, personally speaking, would figure much in my admiration.