As Pequenas Margaridas

Chytilova surpasses even the genial Jiri Menzel in her blissful critique of the pieties and austerities associated with the Czech Stalinist regime under President Husak. DAISIES is an exercise in revolutionary modernism, anarch-dadaist in spirit and form. 21 deputies objected in parliament to the extravagant waste of food in the film, and Chytilova had to defend her film on communist-moral grounds: i.e. the two female protagonists (Marie 1 Jitka Cerkova, Marie 2 Ivana Karbanova) were spoilt brats to be condemned as so much waste-matter in the body politic of the workers' state. But we know that they are feminist anarchists, living (in terms of the plot narrative) off silly old men who buy them dinners, and (in terms of the poetic texture of the film) calling everything into question with the unquenchable brio of cartoon characters (they eat even photographs of food from glossy magazines). We, the audience, are happily infected (even today in the new millennium) by the blessed spirit of nihilism Chytilova has conjured up in those dangerous and exhilarating days of the Prague Spring. First there was Kafka (AMERIKA), then there was Hasek (THE GOOD SOLDIER SVEJK), and then there was Vera Chytilova. DAISIES is in my top ten films ever made.

This was the most pleasurable thing I've ever watched. The scenes were beautifully put together. The style changed from black and white to sepia to colourful, sometimes with a blueish tint, sometime with other colours. I loved the saccadic camera movements that matched certain sounds, e.g. a phone ringing. The actresses' styling (clothes, hair, makeup) was also beautiful. The music was very good (e.g. an epic battle kind of piece of music during the cake fight between the girls). I liked the fact that the plot's point was to explore how the girls' reaction to the world's "badness" will end. But there were certain points that I didn't quite understand. I didn't really like how the girls sometimes spoke in a robotic manner, or how they seemed too naive and silly. Maybe that was the point: perfection isn't art anyway. I appreciate the fact that the director (Vera Chytilova) made this film in a time when women didn't have the freedom they have today. One of the main themes in the film is women breaking the barriers of the society they live in, and the rules dictating their behaviour. It really is emblematic in that sense. Overall I really enjoyed watching this film, but I didn't get where the plot was going, and where it actually went, plus the details I mentioned. But I would recommend it to anyone.

To take this film way out of context, I've got to believe that nine out of ten Miranda July fans would enjoy this film made in 1966 well before Little Miss Moviola was born. Indeed, I would recommend this film for anyone in the mood for a non-linear romp. The film is a cut-up, not just comical...but even as sort of visual equivalent of Brion Gysin's dreammachine.

In particular there is a scene with scissors that was captivating, not in being a "cutting edge" special effect, but in embracing the hands-on art-for-art sake editing. Through out the film Colors come and go, blossoming and wilting like the "Daisies" of the title. Or perhaps "Daisies" are cited for their ability to sprout up under peculiar conditions. An antidote to the bummer that face trummerflora in the midst of any upheaval.

That director Vera Chytilova was doing this under the watchful, and at best blind, eye of Comrade Censor, I think can attribute to the film's non-linear approach. Perhaps part defense-mechanism, perhaps part lyrical lysergic reaction to the disciplined times, the film surely wants to defy something, but settles for defying classification. Ironically, that might be what makes these well cut "Daisies" fresh to this day. A silent film with sound. A black and white film that bursts into colors.

I went in knowing nothing about the "Czech New Wave" and in now reading around, it seems this is the wrong film from which to build a center about. I still know nothing, but I am at least intrigued. Indeed, I was certain one of the two main Marie's was the filmmaker herself. Wrong! The fact that Chytilova made this when she was 36 or so is almost as impressive as making it in the political climate of the time.

The film is extremely playful, and the actresses deserve much praise that has heretofore been lacking. If you enjoyed the film, and clearly I did while others at IMDb did not, a key is that there is something about the two leads, beyond their costumes that snares our attention. Although I do think garlands and veils should find themselves into more femme's fatal fashion... Oh and since I'm older than this film, I kept seeing the two actresses as Carol Burnett and maybe Joanne Worley?!?! Any ways the two seem to be truly delighting themselves, and one wonders if some of the madness was improvised on the spot. Or were they really just puppets as the initial scene suggests??

Anyways, this film is as artful as it is ambiguous. I was enjoying my modern-day interpretation, knowing full well that it was wrong. That interpretation is that women have replaced their sex drive with a food urge, but must leverage the less evolved male's sex drive to satisfy their advanced needs. And again, I confess to crimes against the state and more importantly the film, I *know* I am wrong. Stamping my own ideas on the fragile frames of the film.

Similarly, the flower-power of the 60's in the US could pollinate the film and be seen a diatribe against that which is drab. But again, that appears to be all hippy, and none too hip to the intention.

The film maker, in a 1975 letter addressed to "Comrade President" (her phrase for Gustav Husak) wrote

"Daisies" was a morality play showing how evil does not necessarily manifest itself in an orgy of destruction caused by the war, that its roots may lie concealed in the malicious pranks of everyday life. I chose as my heroines two young girls because it is at this age that one most wants to fulfill oneself and, if left to one's own devices, his or her need to create can easily turn into its very opposite."

By the way, the full letter was on the DVD.

I don't know, I still think this is a film that begs to be taken out of context...and certainly plucked off of dusty shelves and seen by many today. Show it to kids, I bet they'll laugh at this like they would at "Laurel and Hardy" or "Buster Keaton."

7/10 Thurston Hunger

I first (and only) saw this film in 1967 at Antioch in the auditorium with scores of other impressionable hippies. I was totally in love with this film and thought the final sequences of the wrecked banquet and what followed were very cool. I have looked for his movie for years, even rented "closely watched trains" thinking it might be the one as I couldn't remember the english title. However, and thanks to the WEB, we just found this and I can not recommend it highly enough. It is a blueprint for wonderful female (mis)behavior and should be required watching in women's studies classes. I am so excited to find that I may now be able to rent/buy this that I wanted to share my comments in case some other veteran of those good old days remembers this film. If you are out there, write to me so we can share our pleasure in this film and the radical women film writers/directors/actors!!!

Blond Marie and brunette Marie are best friends and chaos creators. Brunette Marie declares that the world is spoiled and they're going to do the spoiling.

The girls are doing sexy baby acting. Their characters are bratty children living off of their sex appeal. Mostly, they are sex teases tricking food out of horny men. The film is experimental, doing a lot of different things all over the place. It's trying very hard to be surreal. Sometimes, it's using wacky sounds. It keeps switching from black and white to color while sometimes doing different color filters. I find a lot of it akin to student films trying to be artistic. It does stumble on some interesting effects once in awhile. The streaming train looks cool and the poker dot dresses are fun. There are intriguing edits. That's this movie. It's throwing a lot of spaghetti on the wall and some of them actually sticks. I just wish that it could limit the number of weird effects to give the best ideas more weight. It's strangely fascinating and an intriguing look into cinema at a certain time in a certain place. It's saying something about the atmosphere in Prague and the approach of spring.