WR ou les mystères de l'organisme

I saw this originally at a showing at the British Film Institute years ago and it blew my mind. Every film student should see it. A subversive mix of politics and sex, it shows just how boring and middle class Monty Python, the Farrelly Brothers, et al really are. A non sequitur to the 9th degree, it shows the power that cinema can have on an audience. Considering the age of this film, it is incredible how outrageous it is. Once you've seen it, you will never forget it. It is truly a land mark film in the realm of the surreal. A must viewing for everyone.

The film for which director Dusan Makavejev is best known. It's similar to his later Sweet Movie, which I watched last week, in that it's made up of a bunch of disparate parts edited together. The most prominent thread is a documentary about sexual psychiatrist and (pseudo-)scientist Wilhelm Reich, a refugee from Nazi Germany who fled to the United States, where he was ironically persecuted and imprisoned when the government became suspicious of his work. A second thread is fictional, set in Eastern Europe, and is about a sexually liberated woman (Milena Dravic) promoting sexual freedom in Communistic language. There are other smaller threads about Andy Warhol's transsexual protégé Jackie Curtis, a hippie with a gun who runs around New York City, a woman who makes dildos and probably a couple of other ones I'm not remembering. The film covers some interesting areas, but it's too loose and not interested enough in any of these things to engage in them. The separate bits began to fall apart, for me at least. Sweet Movie was kind of a mess, but it was a well-structured masterpiece in comparison to WR. I liked Sweet Movie a whole lot more.

Silly me I suppose. I had no idea what I was in for. I knew nothing about the movie and it caught me off guard.

At first I though this was being one of those artistic documentary like movies, in which a whole bunch of people are having deep thoughts about life and happiness. It took me a while to realize that it were all characters in this movie and it wasn't being a documentary at all. It's more a sort of satire and if you take it that way this movie is being pretty bearable and good enough for what it is.

Not that this movie is just for everybody though. It's the sort of cheaply made artistic movie, that's filled with metaphors and doesn't necessarily following a main plot line in it. Some people will hate it, while others shall absolutely love it. I was stuck in the middle somewhere.

Thing I liked about this movie is that it's also being the sort of movie that makes you think. It makes you think about what you're seeing and what the characters in it are trying to tell you with their actions and pieces of dialog. It's probably true that you could keep watching this movie over and over again and get more- or completely different things out of it, each time you watch it.

But it's still not my cup of tea. It's being a bit too vague and odd all at times and most of its themes don't even feel all that relevant anywhere in today's world and present morals and standards. Perhaps you should look at it more as a period piece, from a time when there still was sexual repression and communism and capitalism still seemed like a real threat to the world.

Still a great watch for some people. Just not for me.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

WR is one of my two favorite films, and is widely considered by people knowledgable about the film and the era as "one of the most profound and humerous films of the decade". I call it the "Citizen Kane of the Sixties" because it did what the first "Citizen Kane" did earlier - it summarized the realities we all were living with in the Sixites in the Global Village - the reality of sexual repression in both the East and West, the horrors of the McCarthy Era in this country, the obsession with sports in Russia, etc., etc. It is no accident that a still from this film is on the cover of one of the greatest books on film, "Film As a Subversive Art" by film critic and founder of the NY Film Festival, Amos Vogel. I can understand why many Americans do NOT understand this film - the organization of the film, the two overlapping storylines, the music - all so different from the Hollywood material. However, it is considered by many including myself to be a masterpiece, as are all the films by its director, Dusan Makavejev. Together, he and Jean-Luc Godard are the two "Picassos" of film since WW II - and should both be held as two of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

I completely disagree with the comments of the previous reviewer. Personally knowing very little about the Orgone or Wilhelm Reich, I derived great enjoyment from this film. In fact, I popped in on the TV just to get an idea of its style and structure (without planning to watch it right then) and ended up getting sucked in and watched it all the way through. Makavejev's filmmaking (that I've seen) is quite different from the norm, but not in an overly self-conscious or self-serving way, like Hal Hartley's efforts. "WR" is egoless, simply using film to draw parallels and make observations that are done quite effectively in Makavejev's unique style. It reminded me of the "I am Curious" films, but those are also a bit too self-conscious for me. I also highly recommend Sweet Movie, a later film of his. I only wanted to post these comments in light of the previous user's comments, as we should all remain aware of how subjective one's tastes are from another's. I didn't like the previous user making such blanket statements like "I suppose it might be watchable enough for people who are familiar with Reich, but if you aren't, then I strongly urge you to avoid this film at all costs." when tastes are obviously so variant - remember, I knew barely anything about WR or the Orgone, and enjoyed the film tremendously. Thanks for your time.