Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss tony
That's absolutely fair comment but it's really a combination of the two factors that would make me inclined to omit his work.
It is an interesting point about his prose in the context of modern cinema in that, during his own lifetime he sought to distance his work from the horror label (Gothic in particular), yet with the recent trend of torture movies, if his books were made into movies, they'd certainly be classified as such.
I'm just saying that, as books, they aren't horror.
Also, Wicker, I'd be interested to hear your view of Salo. I won't dispute that it falls into horror but is it, as numerous polls and renowned directors alike suggest, an important and historic piece of movie making?
|
I don't have a problem if it's decided that The 120 Days Of Sodom isn't a work of horror, but I have a serious problem with an author being excluded due to his personal conduct.
As for Salo, I'm not sure how "important" or "historic" it was, but it was not a simple exploitation film. Like the book, it was a social commentary on the wealthy and privileged using and abusing the lower classes (although I think the Marquis De Sade had far more fun writing his story than Pier Paolo Pasolini did making the film). It's very well made, but extremely difficult to sit through the more graphic scenes. My husband, on the other hand, said he was bored to tears by it, so go figure.