Vizi privati, pubbliche virtù

This is filmed beautifully by Miklos Jansko ,who is always politically astute, as well as poetically pleasing. The film depicts an anarchistic 'revolution of everyday life' which contrasts with Marxist Lenisist militarist seizure of power. His poetic portrait is similari to much of Pier Pailo Pasolini's work but is less pessimistic.Like Derek Jarman's 'Jubilee ' 1977 , it shows anarchistic youth rebellion against prevailing power structures.Pasolini's 'Salo ' 1975 shows even more depressingly power reproducing itself due to a lack of an alternative ideology.Whilst fascists secretly admire their masters; anarchists recognize none. Other reviewers explain the historical political context better than I would have.

I saw this film at Essex University in 1977 and have never had the chance to see it since.Where could I see this again?

I can't forget such an graceful and sad movie. It's as beautiful as moving folk dancing songs. Real masterpiece! Slow path, poetic, erotic and hard to understand completely unless we are well-known about history of that event and already get used to art flims. You won't really satisfied and might feel bored if you are finding a sexual porn film. It should not be shown on Playboy channel. What a shame! I feel sorry for that great Central European director.

Some speculate Prince Rudolph of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, knew that he would be thwarted from properly ruling his vast empire. And that he would not be allowed to marry his mistress. So out of depression & frustration with his family & ministers, he offed himself & his girl. Jansco's film suggests that he was so debauched & that his girl was hermaprodite, that the Austrian police were ordered to kill him Who knows.? But Jansco found a lush villa & grounds & littered it w/ beautiful naked women and men in orgiastic mode. Easy on the eyes. for sure..

This is an excellent film, with an unfortunate and misguided bad reputation. Partly because Jancso antagonised the critics by including explicit (for its time) sex when they had been used to more "political" content. Jancso used the sexuality in his film to point out that we live in a repressive society and showed that the characters in his film were willing, up until the point of death, to live out their free attitudes towards sexuality. This was and still is a subversive issue as sexuality still seems to need some dismal excuse for inclusion in non-pornographic films. In this film Jancso was bold enough to present eroticism within a deliberately anarchic context. Contrary to other readers comments this film is neither boring nor rubbish. The fact also that it has homosexual imagery disturbs a lot of narrow minded viewers, but there again Jancso showed these images to represent a multi-sexual utopia. This utopia of course in the film had to be destroyed. You can't get more political than that.

Which makes it sound dull, but more on that later. Read the review by ArpadGabor to get some background information on the historical context of the movie. The motives are clear in the movie, but it shines a new light on some things I guess. One thing is for sure though: If people mistake this as pornography (as the reviewer also wrote), they are dead wrong.

This is like a study of society. One sided (rich people) it may be, but it's still vaguely intriguing to see how boredom gets them and pushes them to do crazy things. Like the scene almost at the beginning in the hay, which coincidently is the only scene that actually could lead to the pornographic conclusion. We do have a lot of nudity though and the love making is diverse.

Some people will be offended by that (especially because we're not only seeing "regular" couples/intercourse). This is by no means titillating or anything, but appalling? Maybe, depends on your threshold for such things.

You also don't really know the background on most of the people on screen or their relationship towards each other. While this adds to the mystery it's also frustrating and not really satisfying (no pun intended). A little more background and a little more fleshed out characters would've gone a long way. As it is, it's a decent film, with a neat message