Customer Reviews

I Am Curious... (I Am Curious Yellow / I Am Curious Blue Set) (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This was one of the most notorious movies of the 20th century--references to it even made Mad Magazine in the 1970s, surely proof of its universal reputation as forbidden cultural fruit.

It shows frontal nudity, simulated sexual intercourse, and, probably most shockingly at the time, the lead actress Lena (also the name of the character) kisses her lover's (flaccid) penis--in a kind of tender, funny way . . . her gesture is far removed from pornographic imagery, believe it or not.

But the sexual aspect of the movie, which was no doubt responsibile for the fascination it exerted on the American public imagination of the late 1960s and 1970s, has been long ago superceded by standard film fare.

Is the movie still worth watching? Absolutely. The main point of the movie is showing the difference between young Lena's poltical and social views, which are amusingly portrayed as idealistic and Left wing, with her approach to her own love life--which is ferociously traditional. Lena passionately marches against the Vietnam War, protests against Franco's Spain, and interviews inarticulate middle-class functionaries, putting them on the spot (is this where Michael Moore got his idea for ROGER AND ME?) about the injustice of the Swedish class system. All this is expected, and would almost be a cliche if it wasn't handled with such humour by the director. But we simultaneously watch her personal life develop, particularly her love life, and here she acts according to a very different set of values--despite her belief in the power of non-violence in politics, she points a rifle at an unfaithful lover and seems ready to shoot him. This satire is extended and very well done.

There are also many aspects of the movie, related specifically to the time, which actually enrich the experience for viewers watching in the 21st century. For example, Olaf Palme makes an extended cameo appearance as a young junior government minister; this is the same man, of course, who rose to become Swedish Prime Minister and was later assassinated with a .44 magnum while walking one evening with his wife, in a crime that was never solved.

On the whole, aside from cheerfully and amusingly portrayed sex that seems almost naive and innocent in today's terms, the film succeeds in asking enduringly relevant questions about the inter-relationship between private behaviour and public political beliefs. In Sweden, they may have been the stuff of effective satire, as in this movie; in the USA of the same period, the same basic dynamics played out very differently in the strange scene that unfolded in San Francisco, New York, and places like Chicago and Michigan: full of political rage, drugs, sexual experimentation and--ultimately--violent crimes.

The mixture of deliberate and accidental elements in the movie (including its historical context) add a subtle, foreboding quality that enhances the satirical, sexy and intelligent tone. I AM CURIOUS (YELLOW) is an early, and still insightful, movie about Western society and culture. Highly recommended.

There is no better news for film fans than to see that one of your favorite movies has been chosen to be part of the Criterion Collection. "I Am Curious", yellow and blue, have been given the king's treatment with this release. The picture has been totally restored, and the films sparkle with vibrant black-and-white contrast. The audio is even more impressive, with nary a hint of distortion, crackle, or hiss. As to be expected, there are an extensive number of bonus materials dealing with the extreme controversy surrounding the films and their viewing in the United States.

More a patchwork of social and sexual commentary than a traditionally narrative story, "I Am Curious" seems to exude a pulse and liveliness all its own. There is spontaneous humor, drama, and intense poignancy to be found within the running times of these two films, as well as a rather mind-expanding look into the social situation of 1960's Sweden. While the films are certainly notorious for their then-daring scenes of sexuality and frontal nudity, that aspect is really only a small piece of a big pie. Sadly, as is often the case, the films were totally taken out of context in the U.S., where they were successful solely on being perceived as sex films instead of intelligent social commentary. Still, if it weren't for the sex controversy the films garnered, I don't imagine that there would be this wonderful Criterion dvd to watch and learn from.

Definitely groundbreaking, "I Am Curious" truly lives up to the Criterion motto of "important classic and contemporary films". If you've seen them before, you'll know how good they look in this presentation. If you are simply curious to know what all the fuss was about, these two discs and the accompanying booklets will leave you feeling like a film scholar. Recommended for those interested in film history, censorship, obscenity laws, or simply movies that offer something unusual and thought-provoking.

Buy our film, the only film
In two versions: one yellow, one blue!
Buy the yellow, buy the blue,
Buy our film `cause it is two!
The same, but different, that's true
True, not mellow
Blue and yellow
This is the yellow version!
Buy the yellow version!

The other day a friend said during a conversation that she was curious and I immediately asked if she was yellow or blue? She had no clue what I was talking about and maintained she had never heard of the 1967 Swedish import "I Am Curious Yellow" or its counterpart "I Am Curious Blue." It was the former, "Jag är nyfiken - en film i gult," that was at the center of one of the most celebrated obscenity cases of the late 1960s. The film was seized by Customs because of nudity and explicit sex, although the politics were probably the most controversial part of the film. The following year director Vilgot Sjöman released "Jag är nyfiken - en film i blått," which offers essentially the same characters but with different scenes and a different political focus. The significance of yellow and blue is that those are the colors of the Swedish flag, and there is no doubt that these films would resonate quite differently for a Swedish audience in the late 1960s than they would for an American audience then or now.

"I Am Curious Yellow" focuses on Anna Lena Lisabet Nyman, who has reached the age of twenty and is curious about everything in life. Her apartment is the "Nyman Institute," and during the film she experiments with everything from political activism to sex. Lena spends the first part of the film interviewing people on the street about the class system in Sweden (Is there one? Is it a good thing? Why speak Swedish if you are not Swedish?), before she moves on to other issues and other people (both Olaaf Palma and Martin Luther King, Jr. are interviewed). Periodically the frame is overwhelmed by subtitled (in Swedish) interjecting some humor into the proceedings and other times we see the filmmaker and his crew making the film. Some scenes are clearly more "real" than others, but such judgments are totally subjective and clearly part of the mind games Vilgot is playing with his audience (is the director part of a triangle with the two main actors or is he playing a character who is involved with the characters? Or both?).

As for the sex, maybe I blinked at the wrong point but I do not see how it would be considered explicit. The nudity might be explicit, but this is not a porno film (at least not by the XXX standard, which is why you will never seen Criterion Collection edition of "Behind the Green Door" or "Deep Throat"). Except for being filmed in black & white and not having an obnoxious soundtrack, it reminded me more of the sort of soft core scenes that are a staple of late night on cable movie channels; to wit, I think they are faking it. When Lena's boyfriend Börje (Börje Ahlstedt) tries to make love to her standing up, she announces this will not work. The couple stumble around with their pants around their ankles and eventually manage to put a bed together. Facing each other on their knees they proceed as if the mechanics are an improvement over standing up. We also have the first of several cut aways that defuse the situation. So I did not see any explicit sex and what I was paying attention to was their inelegant fumbling rather than the scene's eroticism.

"I Am Curious Blue" shifts the focus to slightly different elements in Swedish culture, such as the penal system and religion. Lena and Börje have become more domestic this time around, but the times are a-changin', which produces a decidedly different set of tensions in the second film. It is the lesser of the two, not only because it is privileged second, but because of the fusion of politics and sex is toned done considerably. Besides, it is "Yellow" that was the biggest grossing foreign film in the U.S. for the next quarter century until "Il Postino" and "La Vita è bella."

As you would expect, the Criterion Collection extras are solid. The "Yellow" disc has an interview with publisher Barney Rosset and attorney Edward de Grazia regarding the legal case, although you want to check out "The Battle for I Am Curious - Yellow" covering the whole mess first. There are also choice excerpts from the trial transcript to read from the likes of Norman Mailer and others. Director Sjöman filmed an introduction and comments on several key scenes. However, the excerpts from a 1992 documentary on him on the "Blue" disc are less that flattering, especially compared to the text of a 1968 interview conducted on the eve of the controversy in the U.S. in the liner notes. The deleted scene is utterly superfluous.

Ultimately, the film is more interesting than the controversy, but sort of by default because clearly a film making an explicit political critique is going to have inherent social value and is going to appeal to more than prurient interests (the latter will find minimum gratification here any how). These films are provocative, but the depth, dear reader, might be more in us than in what Sjöman hath wrought. There is so much going on that you should be able to construct your own meaning and given the title shared by the two films perhaps that is what we are supposed to be doing. Ironically, talking about the films, either in federal court or around a kitchen table, is more interesting than watching them.

Vilgot Sjöman's I Am Curious: Yellow was seized by U.S. customs when it was brought to the states and a court battle ensued over whether the film was obscene or not. This meant free publicity for the film and it ended up being the highest grossing foreign film in the U.S. until the `90s. Despite the controversy and box-office earnings, many people felt it was a pretentious bore, hardly worth the controversy it stirred up. Even critics weren't very generous in regards to it, with Roger Ebert giving it one star.

This Criterion Collection release features both I Am Curious: Yellow and its little-seen semi-sequel I Am Curious: Blue. Both are presented with flawless picture and sound and include great special features like trial transcripts, an introduction by Sjöman, and a brief history of the "Yellow" film. Now: about the movies themselves.

YELLOW:
We are introduced immediately to drama student Lena Nyman, age 22 and director Vilgot Sjöman, age 42. The film goes from there in an unconventional way combining a loose narrative with a pseudo-behind the scenes storyline. Lena walks around Sweden asking citizens if they feel a class system exists in their country. When Lena sees Vilgot interviewing Martin Luther King, Jr. she becomes interested in nonviolent protest. She begins actively protesting various political issues, particularly the Vietnam War. But it is Lena's sexual awakening that she experiences with Börje that forms the core of the film.

There is certainly an element of absurdity and tongue-in-cheek humor in the film. A sign appears in the film reading: "Board of Censors. Meeting Censored." Furthermore, there's a scene where Lena struggles to film a scene of her doing yoga, so Vilgot and the entire film crew demonstrated its ease. The film is fully aware of these little absurdities, but I'm not sure the U.S. censors were.

As far as the film being a tedious bore, I was personally never bored by it...However I wasn't particularly interested in all of it either, especially when trying to piece together its purpose. It's certainly not "one of the best films ever made," as Norman Mailer asserted. As for it being pretentious, I only found it pretentious while watching it as I couldn't see it's important, but once it was over the fact that it WAS important became clear.

While the sex scenes in the film are pretty tame, the nudity in the film pushed the boundaries of what exactly you could show. The nudity is more graphic than what you see in most mainstream American movies today and its clear why it shocked people in 1967. This is what makes I Am Curious: Yellow culturally significant. Sjöman's frank handling of sex and full-frontal nudity changed the entire landscape of American cinema (even bolder an accomplishment, being it's a Swedish film). The film's politics are not what people take away from it and they are, in my eyes, irrelevant to the film's story. Lena's interest in politics seem symbolic of her rebellious attitude toward sexual matters and seemingly serves as a way to add depth to the character of a young girl breaking from conventions in a time of both political and sexual liberation. Whether this was Sjöman's intent or not, this is the impression I was left with.

BLUE:
This film contradicts most of what I just wrote. This film works as the political counterpart to "Yellow." There is sex in "Blue," but the focus is more on political issues at a time where the political climate was changing throughout the world.

In "Blue," Lena and Vilgot discuss making the film and Vilgot informs Börje he'll be doing "a love scene with consequences" with Lena. Later, Lena continues asking people about a possible class system in Sweden. Soon, her political endeavors have expanded to issues like the separation of church and state and the prison system. Still, the production of the film occasionally interrupts the actual film.

This film has a more story-like structure than its predecessor, as well as a more movie-like feel to it overall. Though, like "Yellow," "Blue" does not have much of a plot itself.

"Blue" is neither a sequel nor a mere retread of "Yellow." Basically, the two films seem like the result of two writers simultaneously writing a script based on the same idea. Both films differ from each other in some way, but basically follow the same concept. The only purely static characteristic of the two films is Sjöman's blatantly apparent adoration for Lena.

This film's biggest accomplishment is the fact that it serves as a visual record of the change in attitudes that occurred in the late `60s concerning sex, religion, and tradition.

FINAL THOUGHTS:
The few people who actually watched both films seem to agree that "Blue" is the better of the two and to be honest, it probably is. It's the more entertaining one (neither can really be defined as entertaining though), but I personally "enjoyed" "Yellow" more. This may have to do with the formula growing repetitive to me while watching "Blue." These films are not for everyone and I don't think I'll ever be watching them again, but both are culturally significant for different reasons and should be seen by those that care. If you don't, it's best you just find something else.

YELLOW: C+
BLUE: C+

It is amusing to watch right-vs.-left perspectives on I AM CURIOUS (yellow) blossom, fill, bloom, and fade.

However, in spite of apparent anti-US sentiments (which amount to not much more than depiction of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations,) this is hardly an anti-imperialist, or necessarily anti-US, film. We are all too often deceived by apparent 'clues,' in film and elsewhere. The director actually had another idea, when he made this film, as we shall venture here to show.

It was rather an overview of modern life, and initiation when young into that life's vagaries, that are pursued in I AM CURIOUS (yellow.)

Sexuality: shall we save the viewer some trouble? Understanding of sexuality can be derived elsewhere. Regarding I AM CURIOUS as nothing more than a comic, superficial overview of one young ladie's existence, would be a mistake. It is to cheat oneself. As with many comical films, there may be more here than meets the eye.

It may be particularly useful to the newcomer to I AM CURIOUS to remember that A: the director of this film, Vilgot Sjoman, was a student of Ingmar Bergman's, and B: Ingmar Bergman has a very high regard for Vilgot Sjoman's work.

...this film leans on humor as an anti-"Do your own thing" spoof film moreso than does, say, the excellent BLOW UP, the other anti-"Do Your Own Thing" film of the 60s ...

Scandalous as BLOW UP in many ways, this film chronicles a coming of age. DONT MISS IT. It is truly as valid in our own age as then.

The 60s didn't monopolize the phenomena peculiar to itself, to iself. It appears to have had a sturdy half-life that persists, in its effects, to our own day.

The main character is a twenty-four-year-old drama student. Her name is Lena. Not surprisingly, she is a left-winger in politics. She moves through phases. These are of sex, activism, yoga, vegetarianiasm, and non-violence. The director documents her gradual disillusionment. She learns of life this way; of the hip, the cool, the bourgeois, the conventional. Yet she does it with more humor than the photographer in the landmark Antonioni film, BLOW UP, does!

One scene in particualar seems to capture the humor and essence of the theme of the entire film. Lena is in the middle of a chat with a female friend. It is about politics. Wittily enough, the conversation changes abruptly. It turns into a conversation about masturbating with shower sprayers and vacuum cleaners(thanks for the DVD edition. The previously available, and shortened, VHS Hens Tooth Video edition (useful as it was) omitted a few scenes, like this. One was left augmenting the film with the Grove Press script. Not so with this DVD edition.)

I AM CURIOUS (YELLOW) was a controversial film in the 60s. It endured an obscenity trial here. The director was called in from Sweden to defend his piece.

When it was finally released it was a let down for some viewers. All expeted a sizzling sex film. Instead they got humor. It also featured anti-vietnam demonstrations. No doubt part some expected an anti-establishment film. The director had a different idea. He wanted to show Lena growing up, and learning about both sides of the coin, about different points of view. He ventures to show the follies of college-aged leftism, not just the pruderies and pigheadedness of right-wing fascism.

Lena gradually becomes some kind of enlightened , though she may resent it. She comes to see, no doubt, a few points of view besides her own, by the end of the film.

The movie itself was a milestone. It broke taboos. After I AM CURIOUS (YELLOW), the movies changed. Film actors took their clothes off more often in mainline Hollywood films. They had sex on the screen: so what. Is this necessarily a virtue ? Such a trend may only serve prurient interests and drives : even the most liberal among us must be honest enough, open-minded enough to admit that. Did this film do any more than THAT?

I think so.

I think it did do more. It broke more important taboos. IT SHOWED TO THE YOUNG THAT IT MAY NOT BE THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT NEEDS ALL THE EXAMINING. Would that things could be so simple!
Perhaps the generation of LSD suicides needed to become more introspective. They needed to examine themselves as much as they examined their 'leaders' and the bourgeois complacency around them.

This film helped to break a pervasive 60s assumption that new blood always knows all things. I began to understand why I never heard leftists discussing this film, in spite of its alleged slant. Why would a left-wing leader, say, recommend or discuss this film? A film that suggests young, college-aged leftists might challenge their own views (and by implication, conservative students, as well)? One might lose potential recruits for one's cause! and a chance to practice leadership skills with one's own set of young puppets...

Politics may change. The basic phases college students go through haven't changed. That is why I consdider this film important, even today. This is particularly so for younger college students. They are so ripe for the picking, recruiting by leftist campus 'leaders,' occasionally out for their own aggrandizement, like many are. Such students are often exposed to subtly demanding peers who require their 'involvement' and partnership in 'movements,' and 'fads/trends.'

This is done occasionally at the expense of the individuals' development. This is one of the messages of I AM CURIOUS (yellow)

Leaders young and old, of the left or of the right, have their own agendas. They can be selfish ones. There may be more important things for a young person to do. To each his own. 'People follow like sheep:' one of the important messages of this valuable, if humorous, highly entertaining and controversial film.

CAVEAT STUDENTI! Let the young beware. And don't miss this film.

(PS: for those curious: blue and yellow are references to the colors of the Swedish flag.)

I'm surprised - after all this time - to see this movie considered for its sexual content, which is quite tame, and, more importantly, quite relevant to the stories told. This is the best Goddard film ever made, except possibly "The Outsiders" by the man himself. combining fiction, mocumentary and documentary in a dialectic dissection of the 60's these films are a dynamic time capsule, showing us far more about the times and the politics than any spot of frontal nudity could ever accomplish. The central character's strength of character manages to carry the films quite well, and the director's commentary is largely helpful as well. I watched these because I hadn't seen them when they came out - though I could have - and felt I owed it to myself to see what the fuss was about. Once engaged with the films, however, I found myself in an altogether different sort of film than one designed for sexual controversy. If only films of today spent as much energy on politics, questions, and social commentary! These films are classics. The editing is a bit choppy, and the artifice a bit too self-conscious to be seamless, but I still give it a 5 star rating, which I don't like to do very often.

I've wanted to see I Am Curious - Yellow for what, 35 years now? It made headlines back in the 1960's when it was banned for having too much sex. Now I wonder what all the fuss was about. There was a little bit of sex, a little bit of nudity - but only slightly more than Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl. Only the government could get worked up over this movie.

The other 98% of the movie had to do with commentary on excessive militarism (this movie was made during the Vietnam era - the 1960's version of Iraq), Western support for Spanish dictator Franco, and social justice in Sweden. It might have been relevant at the time - and a small portion of it still is - but many of the ideas shown then seem quaint today.

The movie (as well as the Blue version) might be good for historical purposes, but it just doesn't seem entertaining these days. I would have enjoyed it more in 1968.

The films are based upon the two colors of the Swedish flag- a scheme that a quarter century later Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski would use to far greater effect with his Three Colors trilogy based upon the colors of the French flag. Neither of Sjöman's films are a good film, although Blue is better, for it has a bit better character arc, is less self-conscious, more meditative, and is fourteen minutes shorter (107 vs. 121), but neither are outright horrible films- merely dull and, with time's leveling, pointless exercises in puerile political masturbation. Blue does reuse some scenes from Yellow- such as scenes at a car dealership and a sex clinic. The films just seem sort of pointless all these years later. In retail language, they had a very short shelf life. Artistically, they are Ingmar Bergman on a really bad day, although Bergman was Sjöman's filmic idol, and politically they are about as deep as a thimble, larded with the naïve Left Wing tripe that the 1960s overdosed on, in reaction to the dying Right Wing Colonialist culture that arose for a last time after the Second World War. That Sjöman was 42 years old when he made these lightweight films is the only thing surprising because their ranting is more in line with a teenager's to their parent, when they are not allowed to do something destructive.
The two films follow the same tale, from slightly different perspectives. The putative lead character in both, Lena (Anna Lena Lisabet Nyman), is a 22 year old drama student sleeping with the 42 year old filmmaker Sjöman. The film is semi-documentary, and yet the camera also goes behind the scenes of the making of the film within the film, as well as ostensibly following Lena and other characters, like her onscreen and offscreen lover Börje (Börje Ahlstedt) in places where it could not go, but the viewer is asked to believe unquestioningly. Of course, this mushes up the real, the `real', and the staged, but not in a good nor profound way, and since none of the characters are deep nor well drawn, a viewer really has no interest in sniffing out which level is which, assuming that the levels confuse any viewers of intelligence....Like Bernardo Bertolucci's lame Last Tango In Paris, a few years later, neither of the I Am Curious films have relevance for anyone outside of their generation, which is a surefire marker that the art is bad. The acting is uniformly atrocious- Nyman later had a small role in Ingmar Bergman's 1978 Autumn Sonata, as the spastic daughter, but then faded from film history. Her co-stars were even less successful, and the I Am Curious films deserved their oblivion, for the years' passage has seen what at least seemed bold and innovative get pared down to dull and pretentious. Both films end abruptly, with no power nor insight, and if done to give verisimilitude to their `reality', it seems a waste, for no one really can buy into what either film is selling- just as their self-conscious tv-style hucksterism seems aimed at children, not adults.
Vilgot Sjöman may have made some good or even great films before or after these, but these are a waste of most viewers' time, and do not even hold the historical power that the Up films from Britain do, for those films are real documentaries, while these are mere fantasies of a Utopia that never was, and could never be- as evidence by Lena's simpleminded anti-education raps. Thus leveled, time seeks a new Ozymandias.

I remember hearing people talking about this movie and I could only imagine what kind of lurid and terrible acts were shown in the movie. I was surprised by what a boring story it turned out to be. There really is no point in watching this beyond a time capsule of the 60's sociopolitical scene. The first hour is a rather dry docudrama in a faux-cinema verite style about the class system that exist(ed) in Sweden. The second half is mostly about Women's Rights and the point of controversy sex scenes are there to show case the gender based power struggles in society rather than as porn. Overall a rather silly and rambling movie, the Pacifist Army Training bit is pure Monty Python - I kept expecting to see John Cleese pop up with his "and now for something completely different" line.

The film I Am Curious: Yellow was one of the most controversial films of its time, and the late Norman Mailer praised the film, calling it one of the greatest ever made (or words to that effect). With all due respect to the late Mr. Mailer, the film isn't one of the greatest ever made (neither is its cousin, I Am Curious: Blue. Most people didn't even know there was a 2nd film called I Am Curious: Blue. I didn't. I had heard of the first one, but the 2nd one, as far as I know, was never really well known in this country). These films are good and are worth watching, but they are products of their time, the late 1960's, (the 2 films were released in 1967 and 1968, respectively). With all the upheaval going around in the world, these films talked about sex and politics very openly, which was probably a revelation at the time. Nowadays, the political talk is especially dated, and is not particularly fresh. In fact, it's downright irritating at times. The sex scenes, even for the time, are not particularly shocking. They are very natural (which is a good thing), but the film's reputation makes it sound like the sex scenes are outtakes from a Ken Russell film. This film would have probably played a few arthouses in the US and Europe but due to the narrow mindedness of censors and the purtiannical bent this country has at times, the film became a lightning rod of controversy, which stoked the box office take. I would have seen the film because I hate when things are censored. Unfortunately, this has led me (and others) buying things that really have no artistic value whatsoever (like Two Live Crew's As Nasty As They Wanna Be).

Seeing the film today makes me laugh at all the ridiculous controversy it engineered at the time. These films should be seen as topical films of their day, similar to how a standup comedian talks about events of the day, a radio show host, or a documentary filmmaker. In fact, these 2 films really have a documentary feel to them. They feel like lengthy news pieces. Some of the ideas and issues discussed here are still with us, but they are rather tamely presented, at least, to our modern eyes. In 1967, it was shocking. Nowadays, not so much. As other reviewers have noted, this kind of film may shock the most conservative viewers, but for most people, it won't.

If you really want to see some early 70's films that are in this vein and that are still highly provocative today, check out Dusan Makajevev's highly controversial films WR: Mysteries of the Organism and the amazing Sweet Movie. Dusan's films still are controversial to this day, and at least in the case of Sweet Movie, are still banned in many countries.