Salo - 120 Days of Sodom  

Dir Pier Paolo Pasolini / 1975 / Italy

"Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom, also known as Salo, uses the narrative structure of the Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, to present a portrait of human degradation which serves as a metaphor for fascism. It was first considered by the Board during 1976 when the film was refused by a narrow majority, a decision subsequently upheld by the then Films Board of Review. In 1992 the Board was again divided , with a majority of seven of the eleven member Board voting to refuse the film while four recommended a Restricted classification. The majority considered a combination of visual and conceptual elements to be indecent. It thought that the reasonable adult person would find the film's intellectual thesis neither clear nor compelling and would therefore, be more inclined to perceive the general character of this version of the film in pornographic, voyeuristic and exploitative terms. The minority considered the film neither exploitative nor voyeuristic, but warranted a Restricted classification as it was likely to be offensive to some sections of the adult community."

OFLC and Film and Literature Board of Review-Report on Activities 1992-93

***

With the film still banned, an appeal was made to the Films Board of Review, here is their response.

"The Board of Review considered an appeal by Premium films against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to refuse registration to the film Salo O le 120 Giornate di Sodoma / Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom (hereinafter referred to as Salo.

The film was completed by Pier Palo Pasolini shortly before his death in 1975.It depicts the sexual degradation and torture by four high-ranking functionaries of a group of young prisoners, teenagers of both sexes, who have been rounded up by the Fascist authorities during the closing stages of the war. The film has had a long history of scrutiny by censorship bodies in many countries, and has several times been rejected, in different versions and formats, for screening in Australia. The present appeal was in respect of the original Italian-language version, subtitled in English for cinema exhibition only.

The film is generally considered to be a metaphor for fascism and oppression and a critique of capitalist exploitation. According to Mr John Cerrone, representing the appellants, Premium Films, it has been approved for showing in 16 countries, including France (where it was first shown), Britain and the United States. The Board of Review considered a detailed response by Mr Cerrone to the report of the Film Censorship Board on its most recent decision. In a brief presentation to the Board, Mr Cerrone contended that Salo, if approved for restricted exhibition, would be seen, in the main, only by serious and generally older film goers and film enthusiasts in arthouse cinemas, and would be exhibited with any appropriate warning or advisory message which the Board might require.

Members of the Board of Review, while endeavouring to assess the film solely by references to its intrinsic character and without regard to its provenance or the notoriety of its director, were nevertheless mindful of the fact that Pasolini was among the leading filmmakers of his time, and that Salo is considered by many to be one of his most powerful and important works.

Notwithstanding the extreme character of much of its imagery, and intense feeling of horror and revulsion it might arouse in some audiences, it seemed to the Board appropriate that decisions taken as long as seventeen years ago on a flim of undisputed importance should be looked at afresh, in an atmosphere unclouded by indignation and controversy attending the film's initial screenings abroad. Salo presents us with the most stringent test to date of the basic principle that adults in a free society should be at liberty to see what they wish. That principle, endorsed as part of the comprehensive revised guidelines by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers in 1979, we have taken to be fundamental.

Approaching Salo from this standpoint, we agreed that its depictions, while frequently shocking, were integral to the filmmaker's purposes, and therefore not gratuitous; nor were they in any way erotic or titillating. We noted the assurance of the distributor that the film, if approved with an 'R' classification would be exhibited by them only in smaller, selected cinemas and advertised with appropriate discretion. We noted finally the comments of the minority of the Film Censorship Board, who concluded that the film:

"Whilst certainly challenging from a classification standpoint, could nonetheless be accommodated in the Restricted category, defined as this is to encompass material considered possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community. The minority argued that although the film deals with indecent or obscene phenomena, it does so in a manner which is neither indecent nor obscene in itself when viewed in the context of a film of merit where even the most problematic of elements clearly serve the director's metaphorical purpose. For the minority the film is neither exploitative nor voyeuristic, but a powerfully realised political statement on the violation of innocence and freedom"

With this opinion the Board of Review, after much careful consideration, concurred and accordingly determined that Salo should be registered and classified 'R' ( for restricted exhibition), subject to the condition that the advertising material prepared for the film by Premium Films be submitted to the Review Board for approval.

We directed that the following consumer advice apply to the film:' Disturbing adult concepts and high level violence and sex'.   13 January 1993"  

OFLC and Film and Literature Board of Review-Report on Activities 1992-93

With it now grated an R18+ rating Premium Films went on to give it a Theatrical release during 1993. No video release followed.

***

By 1997 Premium Films had exhausted the films cinema run, and because the rating did not allow a video release, the movie was slowly forgotten. An attempt in 1997 to have the film re-banned, was dismissed. However the following year the film was back before the Review Board, following a complaint from the Queensland Attorney General. Here is what they had to say.

"5 Finding on material questions of fact.

The plot

5.1 Four powerful Fascists in World War 2 Italy make a pact to explore the theme "all things are good when carried to excess". They select and abduct a group of 16 young teenagers to pursue this end.

The content

5.2 As indicated by the consumer advice lines assigned to the film by the Classification Board, the film contains a number of depictions of strong violence, strong sexual references and adult themes of high intensity.

In a majority view of the Classification Board:

a  these themes and depictions occur in the context of a film which is unambiguously anti-violence and makes a strong statement about the abuse of power;

b  the film's treatment of sex, violence and power is not exploitative but requires an adult's perspective;

c  the film's depictions of violence are not gratuitous as they are justified in the context of a defensible story line, a film of considerable artistic merit;

d  the film's depictions of violence are not excessive as they do not exceed reasonable limits in terms of detail, duration or frequency; and,

e  the actors who play the victims do not appear to be under 16 years of age.

5.3 The Classification Review Board considered the scenes and themes cited by the Classification Board as being appropriately accommodated by assigning an 'R' classification to the film.

A majority of the Review Board differed from the majority of the Classification Board in that, in its view, many scenes in the film not only depicted violence or sexual violence, but additionally depicted cruelty and portrayed persons in a demeaning manner.

Violence is usually defined as physical force inflicted with the intent to seriously hurt or kill, or the outcome of such. Cruelty on the other hand involves delight in the infliction of, or indifference to another's pain. In the Review Boards view the following scenes depicted cruelty. Further, the Review Board found these scenes were of high impact (i.e. had a very strong effect on the viewer), and were offensive (i.e. likely to cause outrage or extreme disgust to most people).

Scenes of offensive cruelty with high impact

31mins: prolonged scenes of a boy being whipped

32 mins: girl eats cake with nails in, screams, and blood runs from mouth

63 mins: girl forced to crawl across floor and eat faeces

71-73 mins: all the dining room are forced to eat faeces as a meal

102 mins; girls tied up in a vat of filth (faeces and urine)

105-111 mins:

> boy has penis burned with a candle

> girl has nipple burned with a candle

> boy has tongue tip cut off

>girl endures forced anal sex and is hanged

> boy has eye gouged out

> girl endures forced anal sex

> girl is scalped

> girl and others are whipped

> boy is branded with a branding iron

5.4 The age of the young people

A majority of the Review Board believed that the apparent youth of some of the abducted teenagers was a matter for concern. Some of the young people who were sexually abused throughout the film could have been under the age of 16 years. Further, there were many scenes in the film in which they were dressed as school children, and gave this emphasis to their youth.

However, in the view of a majority of the Review Board, the age factor by itself was not considered to be of sufficiently certainty to cause the film to be refused classification, as would have been required if any of the abused young people had "looked like they were under the age of 16 years" (National Classification Code). The youthfulness of the abused was nevertheless seen by the majority to be an important factor, and one that should be taken into account when considering the issue of "offensiveness".

5.5 Further, the Review Board found the film to contain a number of scenes of sexual violence which were offensive  (in the sense of likely to cause outrage or extreme disgust to most people), and of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes which were offensive.

The scenes of sexual violence, sexual activity accompanied by offensive fetishes included:

29 mins: a girl forced to urinate on the face of a male aggressor

49-52 mins: girl forced, with screams, on all fours, for extended (with some scene cutting) anal intercourse with a soldier

62 mins: girl cries, is stripped under extreme duress, with dialogue "the little slut's howling is the most exciting thing in my life"

77mins: girl forced to urinate on face and into mouth

5.6 A majority of the Review Board found that the film contained many offensive depictions of cruelty with high impact, sexual violence, and sexual acts with offensive fetishes.

A majority of the Review Board also found many of the scenes of cruelty and sexual violence to be demeaning to the young persons portrayed (i.e. were depictions directly or indirectly sexual in nature, which debase, or appear to debase the persons or character depicted). Such scenes included the young persons being forced to act like dogs, being forced to eat faeces, being forced to urinate on the faces of their oppressors, having faces smeared faeces, being forced to line up naked and on all fours so that the best "arse" could be chosen.

6. Reasons for the Decision

6.1 The Review Board based its decision to set aside the Classification Board's decision to classify Salo o le Giornate do Sodoam 'R' on the content and findings as described in 5.3 to 5.6 above.

6.2 A majority of the Review Board found the film to contain depictions of cruelty (defined as delight in inflicting pain or indifference to another's pain) which had a high impact, and which would be offensive (i.e cause outrage or extreme disgust) to most people. Such depictions included the forced eating of faeces by young people for sexual gratification of their captors, and the extended sequence of torture of young people from 105 to 111 mins.

Further, the film contains a large number of offensive depictions of both sexual violence and of sexual activity with offensive fetishes, the offensive of which was increased by the involvement of young people who, if not clearly under 16 years, nevertheless looked like persons under the age of 18. The film would not therefore fall into the 'R' category.

6.3 The Review Board was mindful of the requirements of Section 2 of the Act, to take into account, in classification, the literary, artistic or educational merit of a film. The Review Board recognised that the film was Pasolini's  last and as such has importance in the study of his work

The film is said to have been intended as a serious work of art, aimed at making a metaphorical statement about fascism and the corruption engendered by absolute power. It has been argued that the film's depictions of sexual violence inflicted on young persons, and the portrayal of young persons in a demeaning manner, are justified in the context.

The majority of the Review Board considered that this metaphor was not clearly established (for example, the connections of the acts with fascism alone, rather then generalised corruption, were tenuous). As a consequence, this intention cannot be used as a justification for the inclusion of scenes which do not meet aspects of the Code or Guidelines. In the view of the majority, such an intention could also have been achieved without the degree or density of cruelty and sexual violence, and without overall depth of offensiveness, to which the Guidelines clearly refer.

The majority of the Review Board considered that, while the film could be said to have artistic merit, it was not such as to outweigh the clear prohibitions in the Guidelines against offensive and high impact depictions of cruelty, against offensive depictions of sexual violence, and against offensive depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes which are, and which are often offensive, and of which there were a number.

Further, the majority of the Review Board took the view, based on scenes described in 5.6, that there were a number of portrayals of persons which were demeaning. The preamble of the National Classification Code requires consideration, not only of the principle that adults should be able to see, hear and read what they want, but also of community concerns about depictions that portray persons in a demeaning manner.

In the view of a majority of the Review Board, the film deals with matters of sex, cruelty, and abhorrent phenomena in such a way that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified. It is therefore classified 'RC'.

7. Summary

7.1 The Review Board's majority decision is to classify the film Salo 'RC' (Refused Classification).

The decision is taken after full consideration of the applicant's submission, and after assessing the film as a whole against the relevant legislative criteria, including those contained in the Code, and in the current Classification Guidelines for Films and Videotapes determined under Section 12 of the Act. A minority of the Review Board do not agree with the majority. The minority's report follows.

Minority Report

A minority of the Review Board had the view that Salo should be classified 'R18+' Restricted accompanied by appropriate consumer advice.

The minority had regard to principles in the Code that "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want", and to that classification decisions should take account of community concerns about "depictions that condone or incite violence particularly sexual violence; and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner." In the minority view the film condemns violence and its portrayals do not "demean" the victims, rather their Fascist oppressors do. At no time does the filmmaker allow any possibility of identification on the spectator's part with the Fascists or their activities.

Another possible ground for refusing the film classification is on the ground that it contains exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or who looks like a child under 16. In the minority view, whilst young people are certainly involved, the filmmaker does not intend those people to be under 16 years of age and their appearance would not entitle a reasonable viewer to conclude that any person is or looks like a child under 16.

The other relevant grounds for refusing the film classification are that it contains depictions of a sexual or violent nature proscribed by the Code and which are "gratuitous, exploitative or offensive" as these terms are defined in the Code.

In assessing the application of these definitions to Salo, the context of the film is significant:

> Is director, Pasolini, is one of the most important filmmakers of post war Italy.

> The film is based on de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom updated to 1944 when Italy had fallen to the Allies. Its theme is terminal Fascism. It has been  generally accepted by major critics to be a metaphor for the oppression of Fascism and the corrupting effects of absolute power.

> It has been analysed and discussed both in its own right and in the context of Pasolini's work and the development of post-war Italian cinema by respected critics and film historians in many publications dealing with the art or history of cinema.

> It has been permitted public screening in many countries with which Australia have an affinity, including Britain, US, France, Japan and many others. In recent years it has been screened with an "R" certificate in Australia.

Turning to the definitions in the Code, in the view of the minority:

> The relevant depictions were not gratuitous in that they were not excessively prolonged nor detailed within the context of the storyline.

> The film is not exploitative in that it does not lack moral, artistic or other values.

> The film is not offensive in that whilst the material would cause outrage or extreme disgust to many people, it would not do so " to most" people who elect to see it bearing in mind the storyline, theme and artistic seriousness of the film.

Accordingly, the minority agreed with the findings of a previous Board of Review that the film "whilst certainly challenging from a classification stand point, could not nonetheless be accommodated in the Restricted Category, defined as this is to encompass material considered possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community....although the film deals with indecent or obscene phenomenon, it does so in a manner which is neither indecent nor obscene in itself when viewed in the context of a film of merit where even the most problematic of elements clearly serve the director's metaphorical purpose. For the minority, the film is neither exploitative nor voyeuristic, but a powerfully realised political statement on the violation of innocence  and freedom"  13,14,and 17 February 1998"

Classification Board & Classification Review Board-Annual Report 1997-1998

***

What a difference 5 years, and a Liberal Government makes, once again we are back to the situation pre-1993, the film is again banned. It is worth mentioning that throughout all this the film has been available since the 80's in local Italian video stores. Unfortunately, this release on the De Laurentis Recordi label has no subtitles.

For more articles dealing with the ban, see here.

***

Two reports from 2002 of the UK Bfi DVD being seized by customs. In one case the reason given was:

"1x DVD titled "salo o le 120 giornate di sodoma" containing offensive depictions of cruelty, and sexual activity accompanied by practices which are offensive.
The above items are prohibited and subject to regulation 4A(1A)(A) of the customs (Prohibited Imports) regulations 1956"

***

The OFLC Annual Report 2002-2003 shows that some brave distributor tried to have it re-classified in March 2003.

In March 2003, the Board received an application for classification of the film Salo – 120 Days of Sodo made under the Classification Act. The Board consequently declined to classify the submitted version of the film.

Under the new guidelines this should be able to be granted an R18+ rating with a warning of STRONG SEXUAL VIOLENCE. Unfortunately this title has been so politicised that the OFLC would probably think twice before doing so.

***

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE: Office of Film and Literature Classification: Discussion

Date: 24 May, 2005
Department: attorney-general's portfolio
Database: Estimates Comm.
Committee name: LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Program: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Proof: Yes
Page: 103
Source: Senate

Senator McGAURAN—Good. Stop trying to spread it so thin across the whole movie. It is a paramount part of the movie. But moving on, Madam Chair, many years ago I was involved in a movie called Salo, which was eventually banned.

Senator LUDWIG—Did you appear in it?

Senator McGAURAN—Pardon?

Senator LUDWIG—You said you were involved in it.

Senator McGAURAN—I was involved in getting it banned.

Senator LUDWIG—I see.  

Senator McGAURAN—There was a scene of a 16-year-old girl or under raped and the movie was banned. What has changed so that Irreversible, which has I think under any viewing a worse scene, is allowed?

Mr Clark—I was not involved in the decision regarding that film, Senator, and I do not have access to the board report on that film at the moment. As you have described it, a 16-year-old girl would heighten the impact of a scene such as that. I cannot give you a detailed answer, but certainly that would be part of the consideration by the board.

Senator McGAURAN—So the 16-year-old girl’s scene is a worse scene—

Mr Clark—A child, under the age of 18, yes.

Senator McGAURAN—than what is depicted in Irreversible—a mature woman?

Mr Clark—The detail of the scene in Irreversible is not high; it is not a detailed scene. Yes, it is long, but it is not detailed. As I do not have knowledge of the other scene, I am unable to make a judgment on it.

Senator Ellison—I point out that if you had a depiction of a sexual act in that situation with a person under 18, it could well infringe the child pornography laws that we have enacted. I can get back to Senator McGauran on that if he is interested, but I think our new laws could catch a situation of that sort where a child is being abused in that fashion.

Senator McGAURAN—That is exactly why the movie was banned. Whatever laws exist now regarding the classification scheme also existed then.

Senator Ellison—I raise that to point out the current status—

Senator McGAURAN—You have told me what has changed since the banning of that one—that the difference regarding the rape scenes relates to the age of the person. Under those circumstances, the Report on the review of the operation of the 2003 guidelines for the classification of films and computer games—I forget who undertook that review—  

Mr Jordana—The report was undertaken by a consultant named Kate Aisbett.

Senator McGAURAN—One of the key findings of the report was:

There is no discernible shift in the nature of permissible material within particular classification categories ...

So from the old category to the new category there has been no discernible shift.

Mr Clark—From the old classification guidelines to the new guidelines, the 2003 guidelines, her finding was that there has been no shift in the standards contained within the guidelines.

Senator McGAURAN—And you agree with that?

Mr Clark—Yes, Senator, I do.  

***

The following is part of a speech that Des Clark made that touched on the censorship history of SALO.

Artistic Merit

• Under Section 11 of the Act, artistic merit is one of the many considerations that must be taken into account when making classification decisions.

• Some people believe that artistic merit is given too much weight and is used to justify R decisions for films such as Casper Noe’s Irreversible and more recently Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs.

• Such assertions are incorrect - a film is always considered in its entirety.

• Artistic merit is a long standing and legitimate consideration which is important for ensuring fair and appropriate decisions.

• Of course there have been films, arguably of artistic merit and by critically acclaimed directors, which have been refused classification – such as Tras El Cristal, Baise Moi and, as you all know, Salo.

1 Does not include decisions made in relation to enforcement applications

2 Does not include decisions made in relation to enforcement applications

• As I understand it, these films were not considered to be of such artistic merit as to otherwise override the other requirements of the Code and Guidelines.

• Despite recent criticisms there is no intention to remove the concept of artistic merit as a consideration in classification.

History of the classification of Salo

• Released in Australia in March 1976, Salo was first screened at film festivals.

• When it was originally submitted for classification by United Artists, the English dubbed film was refused registration under the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and classified RC under State and Territory legislation.

• An English subtitled version of the film was submitted for classification in 1992 by Premium Films but the ban continued. Premium Films applied for a review of this decision.

• On 13 January 1993, after a 17 year ban in Australia, the Film and Literature Board of Review classified the film R with the consumer advice “Disturbing adult concepts and high level violence and sex”.

• In a unanimous decision the Board of Review argued that while the film was shocking, it was not erotic, titillating or gratuitous.

• It was during this period that Salo was brought to the attention of the Senate Committee on Community Standards.

• The Committee, which was officially conducting an inquiry into R-rated material on Pay TV, was critical of the Boards’ handling of Salo alleging that members lacked accountability and were out of step with community values.

• Senator Julian McGauran (NPA Victoria) used Salo as an example of the type of R-rated material that could potentially be made available through Pay TV.

• In 1995 new legislation was introduced which established the fully cooperative National Classification Scheme.

• Amongst other things, the legislation required that “In appointing members regard is to be had to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of the Board is broadly representative of the Australian community”.

• The objective was to influence, in particular, the composition of the Classification Review Board. On my Board, I am the only arty farty and there is only one on the Classification Review Board.

• In 1997, Queensland Attorney General, Denver Beanland, requested the Commonwealth Attorney General seek a reclassification of the film. Reclassification is a statutory process that requires calls for and analysis of public submissions.

• Following the receipt of a number of submissions, the Classification Board rated the film R with the consumer advice “Adult themes of high intensity, strong depictions of violence, strong sexual references”.

• In 1998, the Queensland Attorney General sought a review of the film’s R classification. The Review Board classified the film RC - the ban continues today.

Community Standards

• Although it has not been formally tested, in my view, community standards appear to be fairly rigid around sexual violence and sex more broadly due to increasing concerns over the sexual abuse of children.

Conclusion

• The history of Salo in this country is a reflection of an evolving classification system, community standards which shift over time (not necessarily in a linear fashion) and the dynamic nature of the Boards which make decisions on behalf of the community.

DVD Comparisons

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com