>>13425624>Also, i don't mean to act smart, but i'm quite sure that this is one of the most misunderstood movies ever made and the fact that many, even here, think it's some kind of pedo apologist or "fascists are le bad" film prove it. /pol/ should start to read more Pasolini.It is.
The point of his film was (I think) not to smear fascists. It was to smear liberals, particularly American liberals (liberal here meaning the broader European definition), but a broadside against capitalism generally, and I think in ways that even fascists themselves view sympathetically. The shit-eating scene in particular was an attack on the modern, processed, packaged diet. This is to say nothing of the more prurient scenes and how they could be easily interpreted as attacks on the tendency in modern capitalism to both sexualize children as well as commodify sex itself as being simply transactional.
Pasolini is certainly and without question a Marxist, but it seems pointless to attack a defeated ideology which most people regarded with contempt. It seems more likely he was using fascist iconography as metaphor. People would easily recognize it, then I imagine he'd hoped audiences would analyze the behaviors of the film's "fascists" and recognize the analogs with modern ideologues.
Also it basically depicts everything that happens in the world of today in an intimidatingly accurate way. The mockery of marriage, the reversal of gender roles, transgenderism, human sacrifice, the absurd glorification of homosexuality and transsexuality. Along with Eyes Wide Shut, this movie is the most accurate political depiction of the world of today.
