Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (film)
Date: 1976
Region: Europe
Subject: Explicit Sexuality
Medium: Film Video
Artist: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Confronting Bodies: British Board of Film Censors; James Ferman, BBFC secretary
Dates of Action: January 1976
Location: Great Britain
Description of Artwork: Pier Paolo Pasonlini's 1975 movie Salo is a brutal depiction of fascism. It resets de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom in Mussolini's Italy and follows a group of decadent fascists as they kidnap teenagers, take them to a secluded mansion, and consequently torture them in a sadistic sexual manner.
The Incident: First, the film was rejected by the BBFC, considered to be "gross indecency." This stamp of disapproval prevented any defense on the basis of artistic or cultural merit. When the film was screened in its entirety in 1977, police raided the theater, seized the print, and threatened the theater's owners. In order to avoid the film being condemned by the Obscene Publications Act, Ferman cut almost a full hour of footage.
Results of Incident: Finally, in 2000, the uncut, original version of the film was verified for distribution in theaters and on video in Great Britain.
Source: [[1]]
Date: 1994
Region: North America
Subject: Sexual/Gender Orientation
Medium: Film Video
Artist: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Confronting Bodies: Cincinnati police
Dates of Action: June 1994
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Description of Artwork: Pier Paolo Pasonlini's 1975 movie Salo is a brutal depiction of fascism. It resets de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom in Mussolini's Italy and follows a group of decadent fascists as they kidnap teenagers, take them to a secluded mansion, and consequently torture them in a sadistic sexual manner.
The Incident: An undercover policeman rented the video from the Pink Pyramid, a gay/lesbian bookstore, and charged the store with pandering obscenity.
Results of Incident: A team of scholars and artists (including Alec Baldwin and Martin Scorsese) composed and signed a legal brief detailing the film's artistic and political value. The case ended up being dismissed on the basis of Fourth Amendment violations; the court did not tackle the question of whether or not the film qualifies as obscene.
Source: Robert B. Chatelle (Cambridge, MA) from News accounts, bookstore manager, bookstore lawyer.
