So I finally watched it...

[B-side]

Salò, Or The 120 Days Of Sodom. Perhaps the most divisive film ever made.I'd be lying if I said it was pleasant, but it's not artless and without meaning.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm not sure if it's the most divisive film ever made, controversial perhaps, but the divide between those who loved it and those who hate it is hardly balanced enough to warrant it being particularly polarizing.

[balmakboor]

I hate it when someone starts a thread about a film and has so little to say about it.

[dreamdead]

I hate it when someone starts a thread about a film and has so little to say about it.

I think Brightside has had two, perhaps three, posts on this forum that lasted longer than three sentences. :|

[Ezee E]

I think Brightside has had two, perhaps three, posts on this forum that lasted longer than three sentences. :|
He's to the point?

[Qrazy]

Ehh cut him some slack he's still in RT mode... in the future though BS brief thoughts on a film should just go in the film discussion thread probably.

[Ezee E]

Let's have some fun deconstructing this, shall we?



And now we know the title. Informative sentence.



Notice how this sentence could have been linked up with the previous sentence to combine one sentence with a verb. Regardless, note the exhaustive research that is detailed within this post, charting the historical divisiveness that Pasolini's film has endured. Further, note how this post reveals how inadequate other divisive film titles are compared to Salo. Clearly a useful example of the Toulmin model of argumentation, though one that's so postmodern that it foregos those little bits of information like evidence, backing, qualifiers, or even an implicit warrant. Yowza.



Finally, note the qualifier here that wraps it all up. It's not pleasant (though the post doesn't detail how it's unpleasant), but neither is it artless (though the post doesn't detail how it's artdul) nor is it without meaning (though the post doesn't detail how it's meaningful). Truly, this is a representative post of analytic critique for this generation to study and discuss.
Repped.

Is this electrorain or whoever that was from the old matchcut site? I remember he had the most glorious top movies list as ruined by us.

[Mysterious Dude]

Let's have some fun deconstructing this, shall we?



And now we know the title. Informative sentence.



Notice how this sentence could have been linked up with the previous sentence to combine one sentence with a verb. Regardless, note the exhaustive research that is detailed within this post, charting the historical divisiveness that Pasolini's film has endured. Further, note how this post reveals how inadequate other divisive film titles are compared to Salo. Clearly a useful example of the Toulmin model of argumentation, though one that's so postmodern that it foregos those little bits of information like evidence, backing, qualifiers, or even an implicit warrant. Yowza.



Finally, note the qualifier here that wraps it all up. It's not pleasant (though the post doesn't detail how it's unpleasant), but neither is it artless (though the post doesn't detail how it's artful) nor is it without meaning (though the post doesn't detail how it's meaningful). Truly, this is a representative post of analytic critique for this generation to study and discuss.

Don't be a cyber-bully (http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/).

[Raiders]

Sheesh. Calm down. I'm sure Brightside isn't opposed to discussing it if you actually contribute something as opposed to pointless bitching.

[Dukefrukem]

Wow. Such dicks in this thread.

[Raiders]

Wow. Such dicks in this thread.

Sad but true. Dicks are always part of the Salo discussion.

[Dukefrukem]

Sad but true. Dicks are always part of the Salo discussion.

:lol:

[eternity]

Sad but true. Dicks are always part of the Salo discussion.
Priceless.

[Amnesiac]

I somehow got the idea that it was match-cut etiquette to place any of your thoughts on a film within the Film Discussion Thread, regardless of length or alleged "BS" factor. That is, when there isn't already a thread designated for the film in question.

Anyways. I'll probably end up checking out Salò, but I'm not really in a rush to do so.

[Boner M]

Sheesh. Calm down. I'm sure Brightside isn't opposed to discussing it if you actually contribute something as opposed to pointless bitching.
Discuss fascism with fascism!

[Winston*]

Let's have some fun deconstructing this, shall we?



And now we know the title. Informative sentence.



Notice how this sentence could have been linked up with the previous sentence to combine one sentence with a verb. Regardless, note the exhaustive research that is detailed within this post, charting the historical divisiveness that Pasolini's film has endured. Further, note how this post reveals how inadequate other divisive film titles are compared to Salo. Clearly a useful example of the Toulmin model of argumentation, though one that's so postmodern that it foregos those little bits of information like evidence, backing, qualifiers, or even an implicit warrant. Yowza.



Finally, note the qualifier here that wraps it all up. It's not pleasant (though the post doesn't detail how it's unpleasant), but neither is it artless (though the post doesn't detail how it's artful) nor is it without meaning (though the post doesn't detail how it's meaningful). Truly, this is a representative post of analytic critique for this generation to study and discuss.

Dude, this is insufferable.

[Melville]

Putting very brief thoughts in the Film Discussion Thread makes more sense than starting a new thread, but...couldn't we just suggest that, rather than bashing someone for writing short posts? Short posts don't seem particularly worthy of ire.

[balmakboor]

Putting very brief thoughts in the Film Discussion Thread makes more sense than starting a new thread, but...couldn't we just suggest that, rather than bashing someone for writing short posts? Short posts don't seem particularly worthy of ire.

My criticism was really just a now regrettable knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I really admire the film in question and opened the thread hoping to read someone's hopefully insightful thoughts, good or bad.

I don't think there is anything wrong with starting a thread about a particular film. I merely thought that such pithy comments belonged in the Discussion Thread.

[Qrazy]

Heh. It's mildly hilarious how many words have been written in this thread and how few of them are devoted to the film in question. I haven't seen it yet, that's my excuse.

[B-side]

Wow. I didn't expect such venom. I guess I was expecting someone to say something about the film, and for me to respond to ignite the discussion, though as of now I'm unsure if I have a whole lot to say that hasn't been said.:cry:

Really, I'm not much of a writer. I couldn't even prevent total embarrassment in a discussion with Israfel, but I can rattle off disconnected and random theories and ideas pretty well.:P

[dreamdead]

Wow. I didn't expect such venom. I guess I was expecting someone to say something about the film, and for me to respond to ignite the discussion, though as of now I'm unsure if I have a whole lot to say that hasn't been said.:cry:

Really, I'm not much of a writer. I couldn't even prevent total embarrassment in a discussion with Israfel, but I can rattle off disconnected and random theories and ideas pretty well.:P

Sorry for the vitriolic reaction. It's just so depressing when I look at your sig and see that you're viewing films that are of such high quality, yet you seldom voice any sentiment about your analysis of those said films. I can't speak for this one since, like Qrazy, I haven't seen it. Instead, I'm merely asking, albeit in a snarky way, for you to offer more sustained ideas about your impressions when you post, since you are viewing quality cinema and I'm interested in your thoughts.

I'll go back and delete my initial antagonistic post.

[Boner M]

I'll go back and delete my initial antagonistic post.
Yet it still remains... x3!

[B-side]

Sorry for the vitriolic reaction. It's just so depressing when I look at your sig and see that you're viewing films that are of such high quality, yet you seldom voice any sentiment about your analysis of those said films. I can't speak for this one since, like Qrazy, I haven't seen it. Instead, I'm merely asking, albeit in a snarky way, for you to offer more sustained ideas about your impressions when you post, since you are viewing quality cinema and I'm interested in your thoughts.

I'll go back and delete my initial antagonistic post.

It's alright. I didn't exactly take offense to it. I can understand the frustration. I'll copy/paste some of my scattered thoughts from RT(keep in mind that this is from the middle of a conversation, so the context is lost:P):

I'm not sure I even remember what I said. I know I spoke of the slow decay of foreplay in the sexual realm, where sex is far too often simply a quick act of lust rather than a session of love-making. Then there's the damnation of fascism, which is the most prevalent and obvious of the metaphors/theories. I also happen to think he was damning the bourgeois as well. Notice the guys that were in control were "kings" or other highly privileged individuals. In addition to all this, Pasolini's constant use of sodomy in the film and how all this gay sex and marriage took place within the confines of one building that nobody else could access makes me think he was lashing out against bigotry, but then again, if we're going down that road, then one could wager he's almost giving the kings a bit of a pass, but that doesn't sound like Pasolini at all. I suppose there may be some moral gray area in there.

Some scatterbrained theories and ideas.

[Izzy Black]

BT you should give yourself more credit - and so should others. You have posted some great and insightful stuff on RT on several films on many different occasions. (And I recall no instances of you "embarrassing yourself" talking to me.) I even thought your Time Regained review was far more intuitive than what many critics had to say about it as tallied on the T-Meter. You may not always go for breadth, but I see no real reason to if you get to the point and have something meaningful to say.

[B-side]

BT you should give yourself more credit - and so should others. You have posted some great and insightful stuff on RT on several films on many different occasions. (And I recall no instances of you "embarrassing yourself" talking to me.) I even thought your Time Regained review was far more intuitive than what many critics had to say about it as tallied on the T-Meter. You may not always go for breadth, but I see no real reason to if you get to the point and have something meaningful to say.

*blushes*

Hey, I appreciate it. I really do. Especially coming from you.:)

I try, but I've got a long ways to go when it comes to writing.