morrison-dylan-fan
Joining in on a poll on ICM for the best movies of 1981,I started looking round for titles to view from the year. During this search,I found that ICM were starting a French viewing challenge,where you have to watch as many French flicks as possible. Feeling that this was the perfect time to cross the two,I took a look at French cinema from 1981,and happily stumbled on a chance for some strange kinky Kinski.The plot:Going to Japan with her older lover Sir Stephen, "O" starts trying to figure out how to fulfil all of Stephen's sexual needs. Wanting to "educate" "O",Stephen decides to be a true gentlemen,and get O a job working in an elite Japanese brothel (!) While she receives an education,Stephen starts peeping,at the fruits of passion.View on the film:Crossing East meets West,co-writer/(with Rio Kishida and Dominique Aury) director Shûji Terayama dollops French smut..err, erotica with Japanese fetishism. Unloading non-simulated sex scenes, Terayama & cinematographer Tatsuo Suzuki brew the title with a peculiar atmosphere of sensual red dust and striking symbolism of childhood flashbacks and a dead bird,which is balanced by weird S&M sequences involving torture,and Stephen turning into a peeping tom who checks on O's time with clients. Undressing a book from The Story of O creator Dominique Aury, (who co-wrote the script) the screenplay by Aury/Terayama and Kishida send Stephen and O on a quirky erotic adventure,that ropes in unique punishments for women who fail to meet the needs of clients, (no food for 100 days) with a cool erotica vibe of O opening her sexuality. Joined by a fragile Isabelle Illiers as O, Klaus Kinski (who take part in a full-on sex scene) gives a great,drooling performance as Sir Stephen,who begins peeling the fruits of passion.
Visitor_Q101
This is one of the worst films I have seen in a while.The problem is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be an intelligent political film, 'artistic' or an exercise is eroticism. As a result it fails on all accounts.The acting is atrocious, the narration off putting and the supposed symbolism pointless.Klaus Kinski is probably the best thing about this film but that isn't a good thing. Sure he has an intense and 'unique' look but ultimately he can't actually act. Just look at how he reacts when his mistress leaves....Really don't watch this film, some say it needs repeat viewings I say one is too many.
B B (ee-films-director)
I bought this film on DVD despite the "stale" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse "erotic" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of "O" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!
ts_nowhere
I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: "A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now." This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about.
AD
