criterionforum.org

Sweet Movie is one of my favourite films ever, though I can completely understand why someone would hate it. It could probably be called the ultimate audience divider. What I love about it is that it deals with complex (if rather debatable) theories in a visceral, even knockabout, manner. There's something admirable about the way Makavejev throws all caution to the wind, not only daring to offend with some of the most graphic sexual/scatological content ever seen in a 'mainstream' film, but also daring to sully his own 'art house' stature: the opening scenes, dealing with a bizarre beauty contest, are almost reminiscent of John Waters or Paul Bartel. The near-Pop Art sensibility already evident in WR is here in abundance.

The observation that Makavejev is setting out to shock is probably correct, but I think in a way this is part of his honesty as a sexual and political revolutionary. I think, with the Muehl scenes in particular and also the troubling scenes that hint at child sex, he's questioning the viewer's own taboos, asking to what extent they would be able to stomach the sexual 'liberation' he seems to prescribe. In another sense, and perhaps against Makavejev's intentions, that 'freedom' does not seem all it's cracked up to be: apparently Carol Laure, who plays the film's protagonist, found it difficult to deal with Muehl's commune during their scatological 'therapy' routines, and completely closed up (she later pulled out of the film altogether). This is obvious in the film itself, and gives it an interesting ambivalence.

WR is perhaps the more perfectly realized and artistically sophisticated film, but for my money Sweet Movie is the more fascinating one.

Just got word from Issa Clubb about WR: Mysteries of the Organism:

Thanks for writing in. We did indeed get hold of the Channel 4 version, and the clips will be on the disc. I agree that it's fab stuff.

Narshty wrote:Just got word from Issa Clubb about WR: Mysteries of the Organism:

Thanks for writing in. We did indeed get hold of the Channel 4 version, and the clips will be on the disc. I agree that it's fab stuff.

That's excellent news - this is right up there with Repo Man's "freaking melon farmers" TV version as one of the best examples of a director deliberately mocking censorship conventions. And the fact that it's Makavejev's own work legitimises it still further.

not to get too off subject, but what part of repo man are you talking about? I was just thinking, repo... man... repo man and here you mentioned it.

I'm talking about the legendary redubbed TV version of Repo Man, as supervised by Alex Cox himself and designed to sound as ridiculous as possible. Some people even prefer it to the original.

It's amazing to me how Sweet Movie continues to crop up in my life. I post these reminiscences as I expect someone might find them amusing.

I was first introduced to the film back in '94. At that time I was working in the library at my college and I got to know several of the instructors. One of these was a gentleman just recently retired who still enjoyed using the facilities at the school (and by this I don't mean the restrooms).

Anyway, one day he invited me over to his house and I accepted and we had a pleasant afternoon talking about god knows what. At one point he mentioned that though he was really into art films and foreign films there was one that had completely escaped him and was, apparently, the source of much frustration. That movie was, of course, Sweet Movie, which he proceeded to dig out of his closet and loan to me. I had the very strong sense that this film had captured an obsessive quality in him that might be infectious (kind of like the ones possessed by Paul Auster characters). I took it home and viewed it.

I had no idea what to make of it either and, though I was compelled enough to share it with friends, it didn't exactly captivate me. I was actually pretty repulsed by it and didn't see a whole lot of value in its forays into shock. Nonetheless, it was defiantly unforgettable. Those I shared it with were similarly affected, I think. I remember that I took it over to one guy's house who became so pissed off with it that he ended up throwing a book at his own TV. Later, I wound up leaving it at a female friend's house, whose best friend then took it to her house and her parents ended up watching it. This still strikes me as amazing as this was about as far into whitebread suburbia USA as you could get and evidently they watched the whole thing. I don't know how to take that but I always wondered what they got out of it. How I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that screening.

The damn VHS tape got lost for awhile as it kept getting passed around like some secret, totemic artifact. When I finally got it back I showed it to a friend who also happened to be the flamboyantly gay theater director at the school. He laughed heartily through the entire thing which confounded me even further. I returned the tape at long last and, after some time passed, I discovered that one of the people I had shown it to was using it as the basis for his dissertation (a piece he kindly sent to me, though it didn't exactly help clarify the picture's odd allure).

Nowadays it turns up with alarming frequency on the screening schedules in film classes taught by certain friends. Evidently it's making its mark on a new generation but I continue to be mystified by it and to have a less than agreeable relationship with it. I have returned to it on occasion and will, inevitably, return to it again but not with any kind of effusive appreciation. Rather, the continued clarification of its political intent seems merely to obscure and evade the very real question of what it is about this provocative and often repelling presentation that draws such intense fascination.

It's just occurred to me that the ideal accompanying viewing for both WR and Sweet Movie would be Adam Curtis's excellent BBC documentary series "The Century of the Self", exploring the links between psychoanalysis and politics - episode 3 is particularly relevant as it deals with Wilhelm Reich ('WR') and Herbert Marcuse, and the radical psychoanalytic ideas of the 1960s. It's very good background for understanding Makavejev's work. Unfortunately it's not out on DVD due to copyright issues, but it can be downloaded easily off the web. It's a very good documentary series in its own right, with often stunning use of archive footage.

They're both crap, though - I have the British Redemption edition, and the print quality is what I'd expect from a film twice as old. In particular, it's riddled with damaging splices that play havoc with the soundtrack - my guess is that the transfer was sourced from a print that had already undergone two decades' worth of abuse at assorted rep cinemas..

Apparently the Facets is even worse, and while there's a Czech edition available that looks markedly better than either, it doesn't have English subtitles.

Calling the Facets edition crap is a bit much - it's definitely better than passable, especially since I have no clue what kind of film elements they had to work with. I've heard rumblings that it's due from a rerelease now that the film is becoming more widely known (the soundtrack was just reissued and the band Espers have been performing a live score for the film).

These are def. two of the better CC releases in ages. Makavejev is my type of director. My fav of his is W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism. However, Sweet Movie is pretty sweet too. I thought Montenegro was kinda cheesy, but the ending totally made up for the rest of the film. I also really liked Innocence Unprotected.

I'm super excited for the these releases but don't you love the title: Mysteries of the Organism. It seems to cause a little Freudian slip. Every time someone walks past the computer with this movie title on it, they seem to think it says orgasm, go figure

downrightindie wrote:I'm super excited for the these releases but don't you love the title: Mysteries of the Organism. It seems to cause a little Freudian slip.

Considering that the film is inspired by Wilhelm Reich, the slippage is surely intentional.

DVD Beaver review for Sweet Movie.

looks great, can't wait for this to arrive in my mailbox.

WR Beaver

I love the menus for WR! I can hardly wait until I have the DVD to watch now.

I wasn't sure what to expect but I loved WR. Definitely a lot of fun, and a ton of supplemental materials only sweetens the package.

DVD Verdict review for WR: Mysteries of the Organism.

These films sure sound very intriguing. Are they worth a blind-buy or do you think I should rent them first?

malcolm1980 wrote:These films sure sound very intriguing. Are they worth a blind-buy or do you think I should rent them first?

I'm wrestling with the same question re: WR. Netflix has Sweet Movie (and three other Makavejev films, including The Coca-Cola Kid), but not WR. So it looks as if the only way to see the latter film is by buying it.

Anybody care to comment?

I think the pornographic content is keeping Netflix from carrying it. If you like politically-minded sexual satires, you'll love it. It reminded me in spirit of a cross between Loves of a Blond, a Maysles brothers film, HBO's Real Sex, and Mai Zetterling's the Girls, for whatever reasons... so if that sounds up your alley

I live in the Philippines. We have no Netflix here and most DVD rental places don't have any Criterion copies. My mentor has them maybe.

domino harvey wrote:I think the pornographic content is keeping Netflix from carrying it. If you like politically-minded sexual satires, you'll love it. It reminded me in spirit of a cross between Loves of a Blond, a Maysles brothers film, HBO's Real Sex, and Mai Zetterling's the Girls, for whatever reasons... so if that sounds up your alley

Netflix does carry other films with explicit sexual content, like Baise Moi, and some others that I've rented from them. Of course, now I sound like a pervert... I can't imagine that is the reason for them not carrying it.

I've rented my fair share of hardcore sex flicks from Netflix in the past (ANATOMY OF HELL comes to mind) and I think the missing WR is just a goof on their part.

Though it took me a while to get them to offer Rohmer's BOYFRIENDS AND GIRLFRIENDS. And they STILL haven't responded about adding Godard's A MARRIED WOMAN.

I've rented sexually explicit stuff from netflix before, like Shortbus (seeing a man singing the national anthem into another man's ass was definitely a first for me!), so I didn't think it was because of sexually explicit content. I'll probably follow justeleblanc's lead and send a quick title inquiry to netflix. I just don't have the money for blind purchases anymore.

P.S. Domino, your description makes it sound very intriguing!

I wouldn't judge anything based on the Beaver's caps either, which lately (and not just for this title) have revealed nothing about the spirit or overall composition of the film at hand. This capture I made (NSFW) gives a better feel for the film (which is often beautifully framed), if you need a visual reference.