Description: What does the energy harnessed through orgasm have to do with the state of Communist Yugoslavia circa 1971? Only counterculture filmmaker extraordinaire Duan Makavejev has the answers (or the questions). His surreal documentary-fiction collision WR: Mysteries of the Organism begins as an investigation of the life and work of controversial psychologist and philosopher Wilhelm Reich and then explodes into a free-form narrative of a beautiful young Slavic girl’s sexual liberation. Banned upon its release in the director’s homeland, the art-house smash WR is both whimsical and bold in its blending of politics and sexuality.
It's not like unraveling the mysteries of the Sasquatch... The American Dream is Dead.
Philosophical film. Each scene, side by side, brings upon new sensations, new bold images, political messages, honest truths about our culture all with the underlining sexual messages that make "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" more than just your average documentary. Released in 1972 overseas and deeply rooted within art-house cinemas, "WR" is not a film for mass audiences, though; one could argue that it carries more honest truths today than it did when originally conceived. Watching it today, in 2008, nearly thirty-six years later, it is difficult to watch. Not that there is anything wrong with this cult masterpiece, it is a film that is not as "modern" with its voice as it is with its message. As I do believe that this is an important film to watch, it may not initially show itself to you right away. Like myself, it took nearly two viewings to fully understand the scope of "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" - nearly the same viewings that it took when originally watching "8 ½" or even "Obscure Object of Desire" - it isn't a film for just afternoon viewing - prepare yourself for cinematic intelligence on a grand scale. This film forces you to think, look within the images, to break outside of your mold, and forces yourself out comfort zone. This is "WR: Mysteries of the Organism", who would want anything else.
How deep does psychology have to go? As the film asks this question, it feverously jumps from an American visual to a Yugoslavia political. We go from our Reich-ian feminist who is in love with the ice-skater, to the simple stroll of our Warhol performer in New York, than haphazardly back to the demonstration in Yugoslavia. As our sexual moments continue throughout, Makavejev uses them wisely (and symbolically) to make political and individual statements. It is this juxtaposition that makes this film bold and expressive; growing into more than just your average "I am Curious" moment. As any of our scenes nearly climax (literally and figuratively), Makavejev takes the moment to pull us back into the "why" of the scene. It isn't American cinema, in which skin is used to fill theater seats, there is a point to the sex, and just as we think there is no rhyme to the reason, we are pulled back into Makavejev's flamboyant mind. In essence, he is answering the age old question, "do sex and politics really mesh"? Then, seemingly out of nowhere, he pulls away the carpet giving us more than the original tantalizing scenes, but replacing them with horror and grotesque ... again - with a point. To stress again why "Mysteries of the Organism" demands more than one viewing (nearly right after the initial viewing) is because it isn't just your average entertainment only film, Makavejev has put himself within the feature - giving us a short glimpse of personal ideals, sexual exploits, and the power of politics ... all within only about 85 minutes. It is enough to give anyone a headache, but also excitement for what was missed.
Orgon Therapy? Madness or Sane formulations? "WR" questions Reich's ideals through faux-cinema and a sense of documentary styles. While some of the history is shown through factual images, i.e. Stalin as a symbol of sex, it is the directed images that really add the value to "Mysteries of the Organism". The drama of the characters that are represented demonstrate real life - the choices made and the consequences that follow. It is more than just a handful of powerful scenes ... it is the option for viewers to discuss, have opinions, and agree/disagree. As I throw out these random thoughts of this film, it only seems to fit that of our director. This is not a linear film, but consistent imagery posted with symbolism. Listening to the audio commentary, it seems to add the glue to these random tangents. Criterion's addition of Richard Durgnat's words (read by Daniel Stewart), help the free-associated viewer deal with the deeper changes and movements within the film. Overall, Criterion's addition of this film to its collection continues to show their excitement towards groundbreaking cinema, nearly forgotten through the modern CGI-explosive cinema bombarded today, "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" is difficult to watch, nearly too smart for my initial view - it is challenging because of the bold words, the wild symbolism, and that wild scene that uses the song "Kill for Peace". Whew, perhaps this paragraph was random thoughts, but it seems to work with this feature.
Overall, in hopes not to bore the average reader, "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" is part black comedy, documentary, political collage, philosophical essay, and a bit of science fiction. While these words hardly scratch the surface of what "WR" has to offer, this film is bizarre in a phenomenal way. This isn't your average art-house picture, but instead a film that demands debate and pulls you within the film - pushing your mind, focusing your eyes, and challenging your intelligence. Using political scenes that are dated, Criterion's release gives you the opportunity to explore from different angles, so that you can see the universal language that "WR" uses. This is a challenging film. It seems to be pulling from every genre, in a way that is difficult to explain. The final scene of this film still remains in my mind, the stern Stalin image that leads us into a darker world. I still don't think I fully understand what Makavejev was trying to say, but what astonished me about this film is that I didn't want to just put it aside. "WR" pulls you, it yanks at your heartstrings, it opens your eyes, and one viewing is never enough for such a subtle (or is it?) engrossing film. While it would not be for everyone, it still remains relevant today, and I am excited that Criterion has chosen to add it to their collection. "Mysteries of the Organism" is an excellent film for those angered by the idiosyncratic destinies of Hollywood.
Grade: **** ½ out of *****
What I Am Curious Should Have Been WR: Mysteries of the Organism (Dusan Makavejev, 1971)
Dusan Makavejev has the greatest name in all filmdom. I get it stuck in my head on a regular basis. Which has absolutely nothing to do with WR: Mysteries of the Organism, Makavejev's best-known film and one that appears on an impressive number of thousand-best lists, as well as in Roger Ebert's book Great Movies. Makavejev took a page from Vilgot Sjoman's I Am Curious and spliced documentary with sex comedy, but where Sjoman's flick is an unwatchable mess that takes itself way too seriously, Makavejev's gets the spice blend just right and comes up with a winner. It took over three decades for the film to find its way to a widely-available American DVD (thank you, Criterion), but it was well worth the wait.
The documentary portion is about Wilhelm Reich, German philosopher and nutcase who built his entire philosophy around the idea of sexual freedom being related to a (non-existent) substance called orgone. (Reich's books on the subjects of both sexuality and orgone have been in print on and off ever since he wrote them, and shouldn't be hard to find at all; they make for highly amusing reading if you're a philosophy geek.) The Reich Foundation and Reichians around the globe had about the same reaction to it as did Makavejev's own government, who banned it in record time after its release. And to be fair to them, it's hard not to imagine the irrepressible Makavejev not snickering behind his hand in the editing room as he was cutting this flick. Then again, you've got to wonder how the subjects felt after viewing Errol Morris' far more serious Gates of Heaven.
The fictional bit is a classic tale of two friends who over the years have become very different, done Soviet-style-- one has become a rampant Socialist activist, while the other has become a crusader for sexual freedom. (Actually, the bits where the two philosophies collide and meld into one at an impromptu rally are far more convincing, if less realistic, than the documentary portions of the film.) The party girl has an affair with a famous Russian ice skater (cue huge amounts of subtext here), while her politically motivated friend tries to warn her away. Given the relationship between Russia and Yugoslavia, which is at the heart of Makavejev's film (both parts; Reich, whose philosophy attempted to unite Freudianism and Marxism, was castigated by Stalin), you know from the beginning that this cannot end well. The only suspense to be found is in wondering just how badly things will go. Which means you're sitting there watching a funny, sexy film and just waiting for the shoe to drop-- so that when it does, the effect is all the more devastating despite you knowing it's coming.
Deeply felt, powerful, and well worth watching even if you know nothing whatsoever about Soviet politics during the Cold War. ****
We Have Just Started Director: Dusan Makavejev Duration: 85 minutes
When Yugoslavian director Dusan Makarejev's film WR: Mysteries of the Orgasm debuted back in 1971 it received both critical acclaim and scorn. Extraordinarily popular in France, it won top honors at Cannes, and in New York, it was outright banned in Makarejev's homeland as well as the Soviet Union as a film that was anti-Communist and anti-Soviet. Yet, it is also called anti-America and a heaping slag of defamation of the psychologist Wilhelm Reich, who early in his career had been Sigmund Freud's assistant and later, at the end of his life, imprisoned by the American government for some of his medical procedures. So what is this film? Is it anti-American, anti-soviet, anti-morals, anti-cinema? Yes, it can be all these things, or it can be viewed as a filmic voyage to embrace the id without society's, be it the Soviet Union or America, moralistic encodings strapping one down to act a certain way.
The film is supposedly a "documentary" of Wilhelm Reich and of how his experiments not only ended up with him in prison, but his works ordered destroyed by the American government. However, the film turns into a series of vignettes primarily revolving around a Yugoslavian woman named Milena and her younger, dark-haired nymphomaniac friend Jagoda who "liberates" herself constantly through sexual intercourse with handsome soldiers. Milena is a bit more restrained than Jagoda, but when the Soviet ice skater Vladimir Ilych makes his appearance; her own desires come to the fore to be blocked by Ilych's communist rhetoric.
I am not quite sure what to make of this film as a whole, but I must say that it is definitely an interesting experience. Also, the appearances of various artists and editors such as Betty Dodson and Jim Buckley, both of whom were involved with sexual works in the underground, make for a remarkably coherent, thought provoking mess of a film.
Colllage satire at its best... I was lucky enough to see WR for the first time at a film festival run by the Institute for Sexual Research (now the Kinsey Institute) at Indiana University when I was an undergraduate there. I saw it for a second time in Albany, NY at a New York Writer's Institute showing complete with the presence of the director himself, the great Dusan Makavejev. The film has stuck with me ever since.
Yes, its not a Hollywood film with a nice little o so fake narrative tied up in colourful ribbons and bows. Yes, its not a documentary of Wilhelm Reich and shouldn't be viewed as such; only a true believer could mistake it as such or condemn it for not treating the totem figure with an aura of sacredness. What it is is the best collage satire (Vertov meets Bunuel if you need a label you can get a handle on)I have ever seen. Though Sweet Movie has garnered more viewer comments for me WR is Makavejev's high water mark.
By the way, I seem to remember the film as having more scenes than what the Criterion release does. Does anyone else have this sense?
Organization and sponteneity This is the best subversive political film I've ever seen. It is the only film that puts sexuality in the political equation, much like Reich himself. Throw surrealism, chaos, comedy into the mix and you have one hell of an experience. The film starts out as a semi-documentry concerning the suppression of the life and works of Herr Reich, here in America, mostly, where he died in an American prison. It might be me, but it never really tells what his conviction was. Maybe, I'll watch it again. Obviously, because of his radical ideas and his past association with communism. The land of the free and the home of the brave, I guess. There are many more sub-plots and characters dispersed throughout, but the film leaves the viewer with the impression that our society will never be truly free, and yes, Communism is held in as much contempt as Capitalism. Especially when tyrants are in power. If you are a fan of artsy cinema off of the beaten path, you owe it to yourself to own this movie. Features are wonderful and so is the film transfer and cleanup. Documentry and interview focus is on the director, as it should be. Highly recommended viewing experiece for discriminating adults
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Not Available Comics
Trevor
