Reviews & Ratings for
WR: Mysteries of the Organism More at IMDbPro »W.R. - Misterije organizma (original title)

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

29 reviews in total

---

17 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
A farcical work by a master of comic timing and sensual exhibition…, 21 September 2008

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

The plot concentrates on Wilhelm Reich's controversial vital energy… Reich believes that unless a mysterious universal phenomenon called "orgone energy" is discharged naturally through sexual union, obsessions and compulsions will erupt...

The film is a collection of these sorts of neuroses, done with exceptional skill and comic action, set in modern-day Yugoslavia… The main character is Milena Dravic, who shouts from her heavily populated apartment: "Politics is for those whose orgasm is incomplete!" Complimenting the idealistic Milena are two female sexologists who are obsessed with the physical nature of human relations...

The film is a blast at repression of any kind—political or moral—and a poem to uninhibited sexual intercourse... Repression sickens and enslaves, whereas nature's physical pleasure sets the human spirit free…

There is an abundance of vivacious sexual encounters, much nudity, and constant immersing into other social taboos, but the film's coup de grâce is a natural mixing of erotica, humor, and politics...

---

23 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
the holy grail of orgasmic worship, 1 December 2002

Author: jimi99 from denver

I have been trying to see this for many years, particularly after I discovered Reich in my reading in the early 80's, read some of his writings as well as a great biography "Fury on Earth". Now our library has it on a new video release, and I have to say it was worth the wait. It is a masterpiece of documentary insight into its subject Wilhelm Reich, of subversive cinema in that it has a great power to undermine the beliefs of the viewers/participators, and of classical comedy and drama as embodied (literally) in the "fictional movie" within the documentary. Occasionally punctuated by the wild and crazy NY poet/musician Tuli Kupferberg roaming the streets of Manhattan in full battle array and carrying an M-16 (I don't think they could get away with that these days, unless they had a Mr. De Niro in the cast.) Yes, it is blatant hippie/yippie revolutionary zeitgeist of 1968-1971, which was very much fueled by the father of the sexual revolution, Dr. Reich, who had died in 1957 in jail for not answering a subpoena to defend his claims of cancer cures. He said he would be judged by scientists but not by lawyers. Inasmuch as he was the only individual to have his books burned by both Hitler and the US government (FDA), his story and his philosophy should be more widely known, but of course he is still suppressed by some of the powers that be. The erotic content of "WR" is tame in the face of today's hardcore but all the more effective for it, in that Reich condemned pornography but glorified healthy sexuality above all else. And for those "doves" that still populate the earth by the millions or billions, the words and deeds of the good Dr. Reich, who was exiled by Hitler and then Stalin (who is shown in this documentary in some amazing pseudo-heroic films he had made of himself,) still resonate. As do the words of Tuli Kupferberg and his band The Fugs, on the soundtrack: "Kill, kill, kill for peace...Near or far or very middle East..."

---

23 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Funny and thoughtprovoking..., 15 April 2003

Author: Liam Kennedy from Hanover, NH

Makavejev was always one of the clowns of the Third Cinema, and WR, his masterpiece, is no exception. Makavejev interweaves fiction, documentary, and found audio and video clips (a Stalinist propaganda film, electro-shock treatment footage) to create a fantastically bizarre but intelligent discussion of both the orgone energy theory of Wilhelm Reich and the relationship between Yugoslavia and the USSR in a post-Stalinist era.

I know. It sounds tedious, but it isn't. In fact, it's really fascinating. Among the clips Makavejev (a film theoretician in his own right, WR harkens back to the pre-Stalinist era of Soviet Montage) assembles are footage of performance art by the Yippie poet/singer Tuli Kapferberg and documentary clips of Jim Buckley, an editor for Screw Magazine, getting a mold of his penis made.

WR is bizarre, dogmatic, and at times, hard to watch, but having seen it twice now, I've come to appreciate its ways. By the time Vladimir breaks into song at the film's end, you'll be smiling too.

---

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
It's a mystery alright!, 10 May 2006

Author: NateManD from Bloomsburg PA

WR: Mysteries of the Organism, is one unique if not messed up viewing experience. Part documentary and part fictional surrealist philosophical sex comedy, Serbo-Croatian director Dusan Makavejev assaults the viewers senses with imagery, music, politics and satire. "Mysteries of the Organism" is on many top 1000 film lists, but for some odd reason it is nearly impossible to track down. Just like Makavejev's other film "Sweet Movie", I was put on a several month waiting list on Amazon. Thank god for ebay! This is a film that screams for a DVD release, but I don't think many distributors want to touch it due to it's explicit sexuality and subversive elements. The film starts off as a documentary on Wilhelm Reich, a scientist who studied the orgon and used the human orgasm as a method for healing. Of course, similar to the scientist Tesla; his books were seized and burned by the U.S. government and FDA. Then the second part of the film deals with Milena, a sexually liberated Yugoslavian girl who makes revolutionary speeches on her apartment balcony. She says "The October Revolution failed by not excepting free love". Later she falls in love with a Soviet figure skater who's afraid to express his sexual feelings. So this film is a comedy, based on the politics of human sexuality. It mocks capitalism and communism for suppressing people's sexual desires. Now if only I could find the soundtrack. My rating is 10/10, which means I'll watch it again!

---

26 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
Not your run of the mill film., 13 January 2003

Author: Tom DeFelice from Leominster Mass USA

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.

---

16 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
The Citizen Kane of the Sixties!, 8 September 1999
Author: fez-9 from charleston, west virginia

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.

---

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Imaginative reconstruction of Reich's theories about sex and psychological, physical, and political health, 4 July 2006

Author: netwallah from The New Intangible College

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Not for the faint of heart, this polemical documentary approaches its subject—the relation of sociopolitical structures to human sexuality and psychology—from every possible direction, often randomly and sometimes with absurdist discontinuity. The director prefaces the film with these words (in the English language version): "This film is, in part, a personal response to the life and teachings of Dr. Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957)." The first section of the movie alternates between documentary footage and interviews about Reich, his theories, and the state suppression in the U.S. of his books and ideas. Basically, he argued that the orgasm involved a transfer of energy that was not only pleasurable but necessary for psychological as well as physical health, and he taught that the involvement of society at large or government in regulation of sexuality results in totalitarianism and widespread unhappiness. Reich's larger theories were soundly repudiated by the majority of psychologists and federal agencies, principally because they involved untested physiological notions and questionable therapeutic practices—the film seems to recognize this at the same time that it portrays the closing down of the Organon movement as a witch-hunt. Later the film shows other physical-psychological regimens—primal scream therapy—that seem pretty much on the same level as the Reichian exercises. Then the movie begins to add more and more ingredients, including material from the sexual freedom movement of the late 1960s—a ruby-tinted prismatic scene of a bearded young man and a long-haired young woman making love outdoors, interviews with masturbation advocate Betty Dodson, a visit to the office of Screw Magazine, interviews with a glitter-bedecked young transsexual, a practical demonstration of the methodology of the Plastercasters, who take molds of erect penises, and so forth. This is mixed with the absurdist political theatre of the period, notably, Tuli Kupferberg prowling around New York wearing a fake military outfit while the Fugs sing "Kill for Peace" in the background. This is connected, somehow, to an exaggerated dramatization of the political-sexual struggle in communist Jugoslavia, where two attractive young women, room-mates, address the stirring question—what is revolution without joy?—each in their own way, the brunette by making love with men, the blonde by lecturing her fellow-workers on the counter-revolutionary nature of sexual repression. She is attracted to a Russian figure skater, a Hero Artist, and tries to join with him in an ideal revolutionary act of making love. Afterwards he kills her, but she doesn't seem to mind, singing along with him and smiling from the autopsy table where her severed head has been placed. All through these episodes contrasting fragments of film are intercut, including official Soviet footage and reverential depictions of Stalin, exemplifying the propaganda of totalitarian rule, and then shots of Soviet shock treatments while the glowing words of revolution go on in the soundtrack, to random snippets of western materials. The film ends with a mournful song sung by the hero-murderer, and somehow the tone of the movie has shifted from its earlier stages—curiosity, defiance, joy, anger—to an elegiac mood. It's sad that we've still learned so little. It strikes me that this movie needs footnotes more than most. It's dated, firmly stuck in 60s anti-establishment culture. This is both its strength and, because so much happens that depends on allusion and time-bound references, modern audiences just won't get it.

---

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Read First, then Watch, 26 April 2006

Author: theintriguing from United States

I loved the playfulness within the context of an enactment of a man's ideas. So to 'get' the film fully, perhaps one may want to read one or more of Reich's books. I have read (and enjoyed) Mass Psychology of Fascism. Good luck on your own interpretations and conclusions. The film really is brilliant in many ways. In the times in which we live it is interesting to look at a piece made decades ago that can and does speak to the possibility of a different way of life. In other words, this picture presents something bigger and more meaningful to those who care to interpret it. It is refreshing to see something that is not a documentary but not a typical narrative film. I hope more people find it as strange and fascinating as I did.

---

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
an anarchic art-film with communists, sex, plaster-caster genitals, Stalin, gays, ice skaters, and mental patients all rolled into one, 16 August 2007

Author: MisterWhiplash from United States

WR is not exactly a full-blown "perfect film". It is, without a doubt, one of the most in-your-face forms of personal, artistic and political expression put out in the period. Only Godard can be compared for something as demanding and daring as W.R., but even then there could be compromises due to his penchant for drawing out the facet of the cinematic essay. Writer/director Dusan Makavejev goes fearlessly into making a hybrid of documentary and fiction, where one sees a truly raw form take place in how he places his camera on subjects and on locales, and an attitude of recklessness in how he edits together the fictional segments (a free-love inspired communist Yugoslavian meets a more uptight male ice skater and fall somewhat in a kind of love surrounded by semantics) with archival footage and the documentary.

It's this same reckless quality and adherence only to throw out any typical narrative that makes W.R such a crazy milestone in the avant-garde (which, by the way, Makavejev says is only relative to other films). He could have just made a serious work about the writer/sex therapist Wilhelm Reich, or a romantic drama about two differing sides of the personifications of communist ideas played out, but he's discontent with making either or and does both, and more. It's a film of its time, but not trapped in it.

One of the best things that also comes out right away from W.R. is that it is, in the tradition of another cinematic anarchist like Godard, a full-blown satire. This is essential because without this spirit of mocking and criticizing the very things that Makavejev is praising (i.e. Leninist and Stalinist propaganda footage is inter-cut with footage from what must be committed folk at an asylum getting electroshock and knocking heads against the wall), the film would very quickly become preachy and didactic, and might have actually been more-so accepted by the Yugoslav censors.

It's the very act of humor about it all, of having sex as if in a kaleidoscope put to dry narration, or the crazy bearded guy with a helmet carrying around a gun and sometimes giving it a 'good time, or how some weird drunken neighbor literally crashes through the wall of the communist girl's apartment while he and the ice skater talk politics and her (very naked) friend does leg exercises, that makes it on the surface seem so outrageous.

And believe-you-me, it didn't get the "Luis Bunuel award" at Cannes for nothing! Going between a gay guy telling about his prime sexual experiences to seeing women and men in the throws of Reich's 'method' of releasing pent up tensions (this may be the only repetitive portion of the film, not s shocking to anyone who's seen any given episode of HBO's Real Sex, albeit for the period it's quite absorbing), and then back to Reich's theories that were crushed and burned as he died in a prison, and then back again to the Yugoslav 'love' story that ends with a few image that Jodorowsky might wince at.

And as this is all going on, Makavejev doesn't let the audience stop thinking, either. Behind a sequence like when Milena riles up the men in the building complex to have a free and healthy attitude towards communism is some truth, contained within what is obviously a parody of communist propaganda films are points that the viewer has to take into account, or at least to fill in some blanks as the film goes forward.

The lack of structure then, in a sense, is structured as such, and it becomes an act of participation to guess what might come next, of what might be either informative- like the history of Reich as writer and controversial figure, almost by bad luck, or about the delirious technique of the 'box' used by Reich on his patients- or entertaining, in ways that only a provocateur can handle. Now, take this as a fact, know what you're getting into before you seek out the Criterion DVD. It's quite a graphic film in terms of showing full on sex, aroused genitalia, and sometimes not in always the playful manner intended. But it's not simply that to look out for, though even by today's standards it's a bit surprising.

What makes W.R. such a unique and warped bird of art is how it challenges the viewer, provokes fully if not discussion then some kind of collision of intellectual and visceral reaction for those who at least meet the filmmaker halfway. Once in a while frustrating, but never ever boring, W.R. is a cinematic shock from a go-for-broke iconoclast.

---

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Hardly boring - interesting filmmaking and commentary, 1 October 2000
Author: fiddybop from Berkeley, CA

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history