This film has a rotting core of flexible morality, and yet a quirky sense of justice. So many of the regular Joes among us would love to "stick it to the MAN". The "MAN" in this case is represented by several different characters. Mr. Keller, who Carla reports to at her office. Later, Paul owes 70 large to Mr. Marchand the club owner. And then there is Paul's Parole Officer. There seems to be so much question about this last character's side story. Reviewers point it out as a weakness in an otherwise well crafted subterranean game of ping-pong between our two protagonists, escalating tit-for-tat until their lives change dramatically. They are beholden to each agent of the "MAN". One or both could be fired, killed, or imprisoned if they don't do as they are told.
The film has a sense of relief at the end. Carla finally gets laid. Her boss is forced out for being a jerk. Mr. Club Owner is a pulpy mess in his own bathroom. They get the $money$. And... they need not worry about reporting in to the Parole Officer, because HIS moral weakness leads him to stash his wandering wife in the basement (or whatever the police found to arrest him). It is a critical subconscious trigger to the lock tumbler that wound us up so tight. Never mind that someone else may get Paul's file later to supervise his release; for the moment they are free! They might even get away with it!
Woohoo...
They STUCK IT TO THE MAN!

The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered.