Any number of bawdy spin-offs littered the market for the next few years, although alongside that, Pasolini's film did bring many new readers to Boccaccio's original. Both The Decameron and The Canterbury Tales have taken criticism from purists for not being faithful enough, but they are referring to fundamentally uncinematic texts, based largely on description. This perhaps explains the overblown and comedic performances, as the more visually arresting the face, the less actual acting that needs to be done. Of course, what is gained in cinematic directness is perhaps lost in nuance and complexity, but Pasolini appreciates the difference between written and cinematic representations - which he used to his advantage in another way in Salo , imprisoning the audience, where with de Sade, they would be able to put the book aside. The collapse of the present implies the collapse of the past.
Life is a heap of insignificant and ironical ruins.
For the French bourgeoisie the people consist of Moroccans or Greeks, Portuguese or Tunisian, who, poor things, can do no other than assume as quickly as possible the behaviour of the French bourgeoisie. For him, making the film, and setting it in Salo, struck deep personal chords, since his brother had been killed there during the war, and he himself had been captured by the Nazis nearby. This one is less real because it's more perfect. The film's line of action is likewise rigorous and relentless. The four repair to the villa, where they read out a book of law to the youths, expressly forbidding expressions of religion and love, the penalty being death.