Looks promising, doesn't it?
It's called Sweet Movie, it was made in 1968 (released in 1974), and it's an art film. Anyone even loosely interested in film should have an idea what a trip this movie is just on that information alone. The only way I can make sense of the movie's story is to say it takes place on two separate planes of existence. In one, we follow an unfortunate young girl on the most unerotic sexual bender in history. In the other, we are in Russia on a boat filled with sugar as the insane captain collects children to molest and murder. At least that's what I think was supposed to be happening. I'm not sure if these events take place during the same time period or even on the same planet, and the stories never intersect.
Close, it's Sweet Movie!
The movie opens on a crazy woman on a street corner yelling a song about a lost love on a mountain top that has turned to cow shit. I think she's speaking Russian but I'm not sure. We quickly switch to some kind of variety show as a rich guy (played by the Texas oil tycoon from The Simpsons) tries to discover a beautiful young virgin to be his new wife. The show features a gynecologist who inspects each woman's hymen, and our lead girl is discovered when he looks between her legs and a light shines on his face. Apparently this "rosebud" is the sweetest he's ever seen.
Would you trust this man as your gynecologist?
This rich guy apparently is only interested in a virgin because of his obsession with cleanliness. He even gives a speech before his mother and servants about how he doesn't have to worry about sewage running through his partner's system because she's never had sex. Before they consumate the marriage, he spends a few minutes washing her down in rubbing alcohol, which removes all potential eroticism from the scene- I mean, c'mon, there's a naked girl on screen and I can't get it up? WTF is that about? But the real weird part... when he removes his pants, his penis is painted gold. This causes his new wife to scream, and for me to die a little inside.
Sorry, I didn't screencap that.
The girl decides to leave the tycoon and considers asking for alimony. So his mother enlists a black body builder to get rid of the girl, and he takes her into a giant milk bottle on top of a factory, where he's set up a bachelor pad. He tries to prove his superiority by stripping naked and jumping rope, with his enormous penis flopping up and down- I succeeded in looking away, but I know it was there.
Bet you want the DVD now!
He tries to force her into bed, and in a cunning plan to appease him, she promises to do something to him that her father taught her her words, not mine). She gives him a handjob, which he clearly appreciates so much that he doesn't rape her. He later stuffs her in a suitcase and puts her on a plane to Paris.
I forgot to get a good screenshot of our leading lady. Hope this suffices.
She winds up on the Eiffel tower while a British director is filming a Mexican guy doing a music video, which is probably the only thing in this movie that makes even a little bit of sense. She and the Mexican guy hit it off and they start having public sex, but a group of nuns startles them and they get stuck together. They are brought by stretcher into a cafeteria where a doctor, I think, does something (or nothing, it's not really clear) and they detach. The Mexican sings a song for the workers, but he winds up crying in a corner while the girl breaks a dozen eggs over her head.
Sexy!
The rest of her story takes place in some Russian shanty where a bunch of homeless people spend their days sloppily eating food off each other's faces, forcing each other to vomit, peeing all over themselves, and defecating onto dishes and singing about it. She nurses off some strange woman, she gives a guy a blowjob, then she cries to herself while everyone else dances naked while covered in talcum powder.
This is about as sexy as this movie about sex gets.
The last we see of her, she is slopping around in a vat of melted chocolate while a dirctor films it for a commercial. How she got from the shanty to this studio I'm not sure. But I am sure of one thing... I never thought I'd see a movie able to combine two things I love, chocolate and naked women, and make me want to look away.
Hungry slash horny yet?
But that's only half the movie. Every ten minutes or so, the movie cuts to some weird boat traveling down a river in some Russian city. The boat is named Survival, is painted in red and black checkers, and its bow is covered in a giant Karl Marx head.
What? Don't you understand? It's symbolic! I think...
A young sailor regails the redhead captain to let him aboard. When he eventually gets aboard they have sex. He is bathed by the captain and her female companion, where they loosely talk about revolution. Interlaced with this story are shots of laborers unearthing mass graves- I assume from Stalin's genocidal reign.
No funny caption... except why is this in my sexy movie?
The boat is also filled with candy and a giant vat of sugar. In one scene she lures four young boys on board and presumably molests them. She eventually has sex with the sailor in the vat of sugar and stabs him as he laughs and begs for death. Her story ends with the police finding all the dead bodies that were hidden on her boat. The last scene of the movie shows all the bodies that were taken off the boat coming back to life just before the credits roll.
Ends. For some reason...
So that's what I gather about the stories. There's no clear reason why these stories are in the same movie, as they never connect and have no interwoven themes other than unerotic sex. For some reason the actress who plays the boat captain appears in both stories. It's possible she's playing two different characters because her hair is a different color, but there's no difference between how the two characters act. The only thing this movie seems to be perveying is how unappealing sex can be, how sweet but deadly sugar is, and the wonders of human excrement.
It's not all food.
I'm often asked why I watch movies like this. It's not that I seek these movies out for any particular reason, like I would the next Batman movie. I probably saw this on one of those "100 Movies To See Before You Die" lists, or discovered that this movie is still banned in many countries (because of the nudity and unsimulated molestation), and was notably intrigued. So it got added to my Netflix and eventually worked it's way to my mailbox.
Good a place as any to use this screenshot.
I'm of the opinion that a person who claims to love movies should not just watch movies they think they are going to like. Such a person would probably wind up hating most of the movies they watch because in general, more than half of all movies suck. So if you never challenge yourself and take a step outside of your preconceived notions of what you think you will enjoy, then you miss out on hundreds of films you will probably love. If it wasn't for my approach to watching movies, I would have never found Memento, Pan's Labyrinth, A Clockwork Orange, or any number of movies that I now adore.
Then again, I also would never have seen Heaven's Gate, so it swings both ways.
Uh, the one on the left...
My method of watching movies essentially means that for every movie I love, there are at least two that I only kinda like, and many that I absolutely hate. I didn't hate Sweet Movie, but I absolutely did not like it. With every movie I watch I try to find some reason that someone would want to film what is on the screen. Some movies are more obvious than others. Fight Club was about homoeroticism. Jacob's Ladder was an ode to chiropracters. The Star Wars prequels were about selling toys.
And we will never forgive them for it.
Art films have a reputation for making some kind of statement. All the weird imagery and homely people dancing aimlessly around the screen tend to be doing so for a reason more than just making money. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to build the Karl Marx boat and the candy strewn sets within. Somebody had to secure the rights to film on the Eiffel Tower. Somebody had to either paint an actor's penis with gold or construct a fake gold penis to attach to his pelvis. There is a lot of insanity on display here, and I really don't want to think it was assembled for no reason.
I have no idea what to say...
But what is the movie trying to say? What is resolved by the time we see a naked woman covered in chocolate? What point is made when the children appear to rise from the dead? How do the stories connect? Are the themes presented supposed to be complimentary? Contradictory? Ironic? Or is it meant to be completely obtuse? Was it the filmmaker's intention that everyone is supposed to watch this film and have no clue what any of it means? Is it meant to be a metaphoric double-shot of movie excrement?
Last known photo
So yourself a favor... don't see Sweet Movie. I watched it so you don't have to. It's not worth the effort, unless you want to test your sheer ability to withstand a literal crapfest.
You have been warned.
review submitted by Dave
No comments:
Post a Comment