criterionforum.org

I love that screen capture! As well as the Criterion quote game we should perhaps start off a caption competition! For this one the lady is grumpily saying to the man: "I hate going to visit your mother - after we've been here half an hour and she's had a glass of wine she always ends up like this! I know you say to ignore her when she does this but it never seems to make a difference...no, you can put her clothes back on this time!"

colinr0380 wrote: As well as the Criterion quote game we should perhaps start off a caption competition! For this one the lady is grumpily saying to the man: "I hate going to visit your mother - after we've been here half an hour and she's had a glass of wine she always ends up like this! I know you say to ignore her when she does this but it never seems to make a difference...no, you can put her clothes back on this time!"

LOL!

"I wonder what she's thinking about..."

This was a blind buy for me. When I saw the title, and a week later noticed it was "WR: Mysteries of the ORGANISM", I was sold.

To me, this movie was hilarious. I was cracking up in scenes like when Stalin had the huge flag of Lenin raised behind him and when the transvestite from New York was walking down the street.

This movie wasn't what I expected. For some reason I was seeing something a bit more serious coming around, but when the crowd of working class hold hands and sing about the joys of fucking, I was surprised.

Usually I'm not into experimental cinema, but this is a great piece of entertainment.

In want to see Sweet Movie, but I'm not sure if I would risk 30 bucks on that. If it's as great as WR, I'll get it with a doubt.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:In want to see Sweet Movie, but I'm not sure if I would risk 30 bucks on that. If it's as great as WR, I'll get it with a doubt.

Personally I think Sweet Movie is as good as WR - at the very least, it's a film you will never forget.

I found the film interesting and enjoyable. It's sexual attitudes may seem a little quaint today, but they were thought-provoking for me (despite an aversion to any disciple of Freud excepting Jung) and at least the film was more political than pornographic. I'm happy that Criterion included some great extras that help explain the film. I just wish that the interview about the BBC version was longer, though.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I just wish that the interview about the BBC version was longer, though.

Channel 4 version. I don't think the BBC would have touched the film with a barge-pole, even if it was manipulated to change some of its more explicit images! (Though I do remember them showing Montenegro in 1998!)

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I found the film interesting and enjoyable. It's sexual attitudes may seem a little quaint today, but they were thought-provoking for me (despite an aversion to any disciple of Freud excepting Jung) and at least the film was more political than pornographic.

Well, Reich was cast out of Freud's circle. While initially brilliant, the man was, in a word, certifiable. I think it does a disservice to Freud to call Reich one of his disciples, especially as the later Reich doesn't follow Freud intellectually at all.

EDIT: Just finished Sweet Movie, and I can definitively say it's not my cup of tea, although it's usually at least interesting. Still, the commune scene was a bit much. I liked the Makavejev interview on the disc, where he says that he basically let them do their thing, and didn't direct much at all. I'm not sure how 'liberating' this commune is, especially as it comes right after the footage of the baby being physically manipulated. I wonder if Muehl doesn't like it because the final version of the film makes an unflattering comparison...

SECOND EDIT: A friend surprised me with a gift of WR: Mysteries... and I liked it much more than Sweet Movie. Really funny, some really trenchant critiques of ideology and radical politics, albeit without going directly to the opposite side. I loved the manic energy of the repartee between Milena and Radmilovic.

Has Emir Kusturica ever claimed Makavejev as an influence? Regardless, WR seems to me to be a clear influence on Kusturica's own style of filmmaking.

Roger Ebert essays WR in a Great Movie column.

His original review at the time of the film's release attends much more to the film itself. (You can find it in his site's archives or just click here). Although the Great Movies entry was worth reading for the brief anecdote involving Roger's kitchen, Dusan, Facets workers, vegetable soup and the problems of cinema. Hopefully Ebert revisits Sweet Movie while he's at it, if only to be understandably just as flummoxed by it as he was thirty years ago.

jbeall wrote:Has Emir Kusturica ever claimed Makavejev as an influence? Regardless, WR seems to me to be a clear influence on Kusturica's own style of filmmaking.

Apparently there is at least an acknowledgment of Makavejev by Kusturica - in the full-length version of 'Underground' one of Reich's orgone accumulators can be seen in the underground den. I've not seen the full version unfortunately, but I read about this in, I think, Dina Iordanova's book on Kusturica.

I'd recommend Daniel Goulding's book 'Liberated Cinema: The Yugoslav Experience' as a primer on Yugoslav film; so many films sound fascinating, it's such a shame that the Yugoslav cinema of the '60s and '70s, with the exception of Makavejev, never achieved the same recognition as the Czech or Polish cinemas.

orlik wrote:Apparently there is at least an acknowledgment of Makavejev by Kusturica - in the full-length version of 'Underground' one of Reich's orgone accumulators can be seen in the underground den. I've not seen the full version unfortunately, but I read about this in, I think, Dina Iordanova's book on Kusturica.

I'd recommend Daniel Goulding's book 'Liberated Cinema: The Yugoslav Experience' as a primer on Yugoslav film; so many films sound fascinating, it's such a shame that the Yugoslav cinema of the '60s and '70s, with the exception of Makavejev, never achieved the same recognition as the Czech or Polish cinemas.

Thanks for the tip. I've seen Underground several times, but the last was a few years ago, and I wouldn't have recognized an orgone accumulator then.

Was anyone else's WR Booklet really really bent?

Finally saw Sweet Movie. I was really, really disappointed. I'm not easily offended, but I kept getting the feeling it was the film as whole came off as shock for shock's sake.

The first half hour was really good, and felt like a perfect companion to WR, but then stupid politics, rotting corpses, shit, and urine gets in the way. I've read the comparisons of how shock is used compared to director like John Waters, but in a Water's films the acts may be disgusting, but was all in good fun. Sweet Movie just was idiotic.

I was only offended at one part when they decided to use Beethoven over footage of some footage of a man jumping around with a plate of his own shit. This wasn't offensive because of the act, but mostly how he used Beethoven over the footage.

Sami Frey's whole scene was great though, not enough to redeem the movie. As orlik said, it is a film I'll never forget. Maybe in a few days I watch it with a friend and try to give it a second chance.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:I was only offended at one part when they decided to use Beethoven over footage of some footage of a man jumping around with a plate of his own shit. This wasn't offensive because of the act, but mostly how he used Beethoven over the footage.

Whether it works for you or not is one thing but at least it's art. What offends me is using Beethoven over a milk commercial. Remember those? Even thinking of them now makes me angry. I hated them so much!

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Whether it works for you or not is one thing but at least it's art. What offends me is using Beethoven over a milk commercial. Remember those? Even thinking of them now makes me angry. I hated them so much!

You think that's offensive??? Do you remember Reagan's reelection campaign in 1984 (an ironic coincidence, that...) when he used Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." as a campaign song, despite the song being a protest of Reagan policies?

I believe Marcuse called it "repressive desublimation." I rather disliked Sweet Movie as well, but at least it resists any and all attempts at repressive desublimation. Indeed, one might argue that the film goes as far as it does for that very reason, especially since one storyline is about precisely the "desublimation" of Miss Canada, in stark contrast to the scatological commune and the communists on the sugar-laden boat.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:I was only offended at one part when they decided to use Beethoven over footage of some footage of a man jumping around with a plate of his own shit. This wasn't offensive because of the act, but mostly how he used Beethoven over the footage.

Whether it works for you or not is one thing but at least it's art. What offends me is using Beethoven over a milk commercial. Remember those? Even thinking of them now makes me angry. I hated them so much!

Tell me about it. That's actually worse than the way it's used in Sweet Movie. Makavejev doesn't water the film down at all or sacrifice anything, so I have to give the man respect for that.

Back to W.R., I have to elect Hole in the Soul as best special feature this year. It's absolutely hilarious.

I'll still try to see Coca-Cola Kid, and I'll try to find a laserdisc of Montenegro.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:I'll still try to see Coca-Cola Kid, and I'll try to find a laserdisc of Montenegro.

Both are on Netflix.

justeleblanc wrote:

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:I'll still try to see Coca-Cola Kid, and I'll try to find a laserdisc of Montenegro.

Both are on Netflix.

I work at a video store, good watching out though.

Just watched it. I have really a problem with the scene of Anna Prucnal exposing herself with the kids.

French completist wrote:Just watched it. I have really a problem with the scene of Anna Prucnal exposing herself with the kids.

In the interview with Makavejev, he discusses how everyone was comfortable, and were all aware that when you wanted to stop, you can stop. They do go a bit far, but the kids don't seem to mind.

Oddly enough, I had no problem with that scene at all.

If that scene makes you uncomfortable then you'd be advised to never see Godard's Numero Deux. Graphic depictions of Mommy and Daddy explaining sex to their children. Waay out and uncomfortable.

I wouldn't recommend Jean-Claude Lauzon's Léolo either...

DVD Times reviews of WR and Sweet Movie

For anyone who really enjoys the perversity of these films I strongly recommend Miike's Visitor Q. I have no idea why this film isn't more notorious.

Watched Sweet Movie earlier this week. Carol Laure in chocolate is worth the 20 dollar price alone.

I loved Sweet Movie! I liked, but didn't get WR, there's a lot to absorb for me. I will be checking it out many times. Did anyone think of Schizopolis while watching this? Soderbergh must have been inspired by it, the revolutionary guy in orange was just like the Elmo Oxygen character.

I think everyone should check these out just to see how gorgeous these films are, especially Sweet Movie, even the commune scene is a joy to watch, I just had to hold my pillow, but these transfers are so colorful and clear. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Sweet Movie make an amazing double feature.

oldsheperd wrote:Watched Sweet Movie earlier this week. Carol Laure in chocolate is worth the 20 dollar price alone.

God yes, I love how we are told of her sweet vagina in the beginning of the movie, and at the end we actually get to see it, covered in chocolate! She is so pretty, the commune section is heartbreaking though. This book is about Otto Muehl and the Vienna Actionist artists. You can find his films at UBU too. I haven't seen the Idiots by Lars Von Trier, by what I think it;s about reminds me of them too.