MUBI

I don’t feel “Sweet Movie” is full of death, in the sense that this may be the overpowering conceit of the film. However, the fact of the matter is that “the world is full of corpses” as Sailor Potemkin says. Makavejev shows you this world. He shows it to you through the actuality footage of the Katyn massacre. His characters are given the power of life over death in the fictional strand of the film. The Katyn massacre is ours in reality. These victims refuse to stay buried. And life still prevails, even in the face of a massacre. Note the personal objects that are recovered from the corpses. Pictures of smiling, happy families that remain eternal.

Why do we need to wallow in this? To remind ourselves that we must think of these things always and speak of them ALWAYS, in opposition to the wishes of the British minister. Otherwise a succession of Katyns occur. Why are the only things we taste in the film sugar and excrement? Because that is all there is. There are only two tastes: sweet and sour. Either pleasant or unpleasant. What happens when the traditional unpleasantness becomes a source of pleasure and the traditional pleasantness becomes a source of death? This is the postulate Makavejev attempts to exercise. He is a destructive artist who is all about upending traditional values.

Let me offer a quotation from Villem Flusser:

“There is a passage in Sartre in which the circularity of the aesthetic universe is clearly articulated. He describes a honey pot in which we are immersed, and where we spend our time licking that sweet stuff — up to the point that we are overcome with nausea in regard to the honey and to ourselves, and we begin to vomit. That nausea, which propels us out of sweet habit into terror and which shows us our own emptiness as opposed to the excessive fullness of kitsch, is precisely what we might call our ‘humanity’. We are hollow, the world is full, and the moment we become aware of this we begin to vomit that fullness from out of our hollowness. And this vomit is not only a sign of our becoming human, it is also what we mean when we use the word art. Art and human are synonymous, and they both mean that we deny the fullness of the world (its being such). They both mean that we are not animals governed by habit, but human beings, meaning artists.”

On tastes, everything comes in degrees of the two outer poles, which are sweet and sour (or bitter if you prefer). Makavejev is the type of artist to give you extremes more than degrees (for better or for worse). But the film is called “Sweet Movie”. So you have to ask yourself if Makavejev is propelling you out of your “sweet habits”. You’d do good to start with an analysis of what those habits are, before moving on to what he is propelling you into and why.

More from Flusser:

“If one slides along the scale of values somewhat more down to earth, one needs no longer to stammer, one can speak reasonably. This is because the gray zone of beauty grows ever more gray, and thus beauty changes imperceptibly into prettiness…The more convenient the reception of the information contained within a work of art is, the prettier that work is. If one applies the basic law of communication, which states that information and communication are inversely proportional, one may measure how much a specific work communicates: the better it communicates (the more redundancies it contains), the less it informs. In other terms: the easier it is to decipher a work of art, the prettier it is, and therefore the more successful…The less it disturbs habit, the prettier it becomes.”

Regarding my theorizing of taste, I am oversimplifying to aid our analysis. Since Makavejev operates in extremes (not always, but often), I wanted to posit the two ends he shuttles between. Yes, the world is diverse and multi-dimensional. Regardless, I think we get a lot of oppositions in this film. Sailor Potemkin being bathed in sugar, the commune members bathing themselves in shit, Miss Canada being bathed in chocolate. There is a constant dance, or slide, along the scales in this film. Children being seduced with candy (the same way Miss Canada seduces us in her chocolate dance of death), children being seduced by erotic dance, children being murdered, children rising from their bodybags. And this film certainly moves from humor to horror. The Katyn sequence is exhibit A in this instance.

I believe our sweet habits are our complacencies in life. Regarding sex, death, any number of societal mores and so on. Your very reactions to the film are your own sweet habits that Makavejev is trying to awaken you from. He raises bodies from the ground so you can see; resurrects children that we suffocate with our adult sweet habits and has them look you in the eye.

“Sweet Movie” is full of redundancies and repetitions. Gabriel Tarde said that repetition and opposition are among the keys that open up the arcana of the universe. There are ghostly echoes throughout this film if one watches and listens to it closely. “Sweet Movie” is not convenient, it is not a pretty work of art. It communicates more and informs less. It is not easy to decipher and therefore is not a successful work of art (in terms of mainstream, habitual success). It disturbs habit. Again, it is a destructive film.

I really believe Flusser’s writings are key in understanding this film, so I will offer more:

“Much more interesting (more graspable), however, is the imprecise passage between that extreme zone and the one that we can just stand without cracking…It is that gray zone where terror turns into enthusiasm, ugliness into beauty…And there is yet another way to put it: this is that gray zone into which those artists have climbed who have attempted, at the risk of their lives, to utter that which is unutterable, to render audible that which is ineffable, to render visible that which is hidden.”

Is the Katyn actuality sequence different from the commune sequence? That is for you the viewer to decide. Maybe there are thematic similarities, maybe formal similarities, maybe not. Why is Makavejev dealing in extremes? Why not? Why do some artists stick to representational schemes and some abstract? It is his mode of expression. Something he carries deep within his soul and probably is not even consciously aware of. Is it possible to get too much of a good thing, in Makavejev’s view? I think that is clear from the final scene in the film. Death by chocolate. Beyond too much of a good thing, how about what happens when good things get perverted? Makavejev explores that on a number of levels in this film.

Regarding communicating versus informing I am saying that one or the other may be too much of a good (or bad) thing. Some films talk loud and say nothing. Some films talk softly and say everything. Some films communicate too many things and do not inform. Some films inform without communicating why. And then we have to judge the ethics of said communication/information.

“To utter that which is unutterable.”

http://bit.ly/fSzOmq

“Thinking can sometimes be a very dangerous exercise.” These are true words taken right out of Sweet Movie’s context, and pretty much sum up the entire Film. Sweet Movie starts out in a dream like scene that had me laughing out loud and nearly pissing my pants at the ridiculous subject matter, addressing sex, marriage, money, etc., and satyrical stage directions. Within the first few minutes, several of the main Characters, if that’s what you can call them, were already thoroughly developed into monstrous humans and clueless idiots. The thing I really loved about the Film was the side-by-side comparison of an artificial love breathing life from money, sex, and power, and a more a real love on a ship destined for freedom. Neither end well, but that’s love for you. Sweet Movie has great color, and absolutely beautiful shots of France. It’s a fast paced movie full of obnoxious humor, and witty hysteria that will surely have your sides splitting, all the way up to the almost unbearably disgusting last thirty minutes or so.

Oddball mix of elements in Makevejev’s most way-out fantasia-collage, fusing critiques of consumerism and sexual politics with scatological comedy. However his usually eclectic magpie nest of ideas and motifs show signs of strain.

It’s all a bit confused in its parallel stories – one of woman as chattel-like object thrown from one sentient experience to another, the other liberated but homicidaly deranged cutting a politcal sway through the canals of Amsterdam – but its all to fairly indiscernible effect.

The social and political commentary achieved by documentary inserts, found in his earlier films, is largely missing – except in the films finest sequence during the Katyn Forest Massacre which reminds one why Makevejev is a master of his peculiar art -and the descent into baser human instincts with Otto Muelhe and co. feels less like liberated abandon than an unsatisfying, if inevitable conclusion. Artists don’t need to be clear in their intentions, but – to stretch a cliché – Makevejev seems very much the kid in a sweet shop snatching at anything that grabs the attention, but with little regard to a meaningful whole.

It was pretty much the end of the road for this brief but sweet period of liberated filmmaking where practically anything seemed to go – especially free thought – and Makevejev wouldn’t make a film for a number of years, and certainly nothing as free swinging as this. Perhaps the magpie flew the nest?

Having said that, taken as a series of vignettes (or perhaps short films), that there’s something joyful and wonderfully uninhibited about its raucous vibe: tune in, drop out, fuck, do what you want… (Well, sort of).

Alright you film fuckin geeks yeah we all know Sweet Movie is filled with political symbolism and Marxism and all that shit but let’s discuss what we actually SEE ON SCREEN!

1. People eating and puking at supper, drinking each other’s fuckin PISS, shitting simultaneously on plates and carrying it around singing “Ode To Joy” in German!

2. The music and it’s original songs especially the last song makes me dance!

3. The ending……..

4. The beautiful fucking DELICIOUS looking chocolate all over her body…………

Was it disturbing? YES! Was it sexual and made me have a boner? Well of course I’m not a fag who doesn’t get aroused by beautiful naked women swimming in chocolate? Were some of the scenes unnecessary FUCK YES! Do I really fuckin need to see another man drink another man’s piss AS he’s pissing and puking?? Fuck no that’s some fuckin faggot ass perverted fetish shit!

So in summary: You wanna watch some really fucked up sexual perverted shit mixed with political symbolism then pick up this movie! Just make sure the people watching with you are ready for an orgy buffet after! And bring lots of SUGAR! Because it’s a SWEET TIME!

9 out of 10 stars for having the audacity to actually film some of these scenes. And I love the music…I can’t lie. They use the original song that Clockwork Orange copied. Kubrick fans will notice!

I watched this a number of times some years ago, and I think in the final analysis I thought it was about, among other things, a return to innocence lost. I forget why, exactly. One thing, though: it’s still a very shocking movie, which is not a claim many 34-year-old films can make. I forget which critic said that there are scenes in the film where Makavejev seemed to be pushing not only the limits of convention, but of his own sanity. That’s true too. There aren’t that many films which seem to be made by a certifiable madman. See this film if you think your own ideas are too crazy.

I took three views to get through this movie, without having to be offended or frustrated. It was a feeling of apathy that bounced around from scene to scene that repelled me instead. In a range of politically charged “surrealist” films, from Godard’s late 60’s period to the entire oeuvre of Alejandro Jodorowsky, there are weird and irreverent and provocative images that purposefully guide the viewer into a zone of alienation and strange vibes. Yet those films are made by filmmakers, at least in my opinion, that know what they are doing and use unconventional and challenging approaches to further logical thought. In other words, no matter how weird they get I feel like I’m in safe hands and that I’m being guided somewhere.

This art film does have moments of brilliance: a gypsy candy boat lady seducing three amused children, surrounded by candy and the familiar squint of Stalin’s eyes; a sex romp that travels from the Eiffel tower to a restaurant kitchen. There’s also a lot of stupid moments smothered with artistic pretense that either I’m not getting or perhaps the imagery does little inspire any kind of thought. Any moment of life in the film, like those I mentioned, are punctuated with dumb gags that beat any potential meaning to a pulp. It’s sloppy directing from a guy who evidently has visual imagination to spare. For all the interesting imagery in the frame there isn’t a single interesting reason to use any of it.

Still, I admire the form. It’s an interesting bit of pop art. It also has a gentle appreciation for life and that’s okay by me.