The Swedish actor Lena Nyman has died of cancer aged 66, a day after the death of Maria Schneider. Both actors were instantly associated with a sexually explicit film: Schneider with Last Tango in Paris and Nyman with I Am Curious (Yellow). But while Schneider's career and life suffered consequently, Nyman went on to establish herself as a well-loved performer in her native country.
The NYT obit links to the original review:
To the extent that "I Am Curious" tells a conventional story—and it is very loose and cool in this respect—it is the story of Lena, an intensely serious (and funny) young woman who goes about Stockholm seeking to implement new answers to the social, political and sexual hang-ups that seem to her to have calcified Swedish life.In fact, some of the commentary on the DVD (the director was still around; he speaks English with a fairly mild Swedish accent and is nicely laid back) put out over thirty years after its release suggests the social commentary was more controversial for some in Sweden than the sex stuff. The sexual material was praised by Vincent Canby in the review as well:
In the course of searching for her own sexual identity, Lena mets and has a stormy affair with a healthy young man who works in a men's store. Their-first encounter, among the file cabinets, tape recorders and other paraphernalia of Lena's room, is fine, adult comedy as the two of them—suddenly all clumsy in their excitement—hobble around (their movements restricted by the clothes around their feet) trying to fix a mattress on the floor. In the midst of the preparation, a little printed sign ("I Am Free"), which Lena has pasted on the wall, comes loose.The infamous nature of the film aside this is not just a piece of porn, even of the Russ Meyer variety. The fact that the lead later had a major role in Ingmar Bergman's Autumn Sonata suggests there is some real talent here. The film is a serious work, even if many might share the opinion of one judge that it is a "crashing bore." It fits well in its era: a sort of New Age film (yeah, not sure what exactly that means, but it sounds right) that has something to say about major social issues but in the messy and rough way of a young sexual active college student like Lena here. One the first op-ed notes led the reviewer having an "obvious affection for Lena of the earnest, pretty face and the somewhat rotund figure that betrays every candy bar she has ever eaten. It looks like real love."
Not that nice, but she does come off as a real person, not just some fake sex movie character. And, having seen a review a few years back about Deep Throat, such realism (one sign: pubic hair; pubic hair is not seen in late night soft porn and in one mainstream movie, a flash of it risked a "NC-17" rating). Now, some saw any such examination of social issues and the like in films of this nature just a way to toss in some "redeeming social value" to pass muster. Hard as it is to believe, this film was found to be obscene by some U.S. courts, even after mid-60s Supreme Court rulings made it pretty hard to do that. One case [WAGONHEIM, et al. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS] even reached the Supreme Court around 1970 and was upheld by a split decision. Justice Douglas recused himself in the midst of impeachment troubles because he contributed to works by the publisher involved.
The film might be boring after awhile [over three hours of material was filmed, split into two films per the colors of the national flag; the other being I Am Curious (Blue)], but if a film with so much social commentary (down to a clip of an interview with Martin Luther King Jr., who was in Sweden to get his Nobel) wasn't redeeming enough, what was? The '60s was filled with lame sex films of varying degrees of raunchiness. And, this went too far? The judge who found it a bore was in the dissent; the majority upholding the ban (though it was allowed in some places) had this to say:
This Court has little difficulty in finding that the dominant theme of the film, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex and is patently offensive in that it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters. It is only with regard to the third element of the "Roth-Alberts" test as set forth in A Book v. Attorney General, supra, which must coalesce with the other two standards, which presents any occasion for pause. However, after reviewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellants' contention that the film does have something of social value, it is our judgment that it is utterly without redeeming social value. We have previously, in this opinion, stated that the attempts of the film makers to use social questions to depict the restlessness of youth and its search for identity, against an intellectual ambience, were patently strained and contrived. We do not think that Lena's concern with social and political problems, so artificially depicted, supplies the redeeming social quality required to sustain the film. We find no meaningful nexus between this concern and her problem with her twenty-three lovers.Sure. Fanny Hill, redeeming. This not. The excerpt is a telling example of the lack of imagination involved in such cases. Sexual relations not providing a "meaningful nexus" for a young woman's search for identity and her views on men in general. The film is not about her twenty-three lovers. It focuses on her relationship with two men in general, really. And, how about "the sexual scenes have nothing whatever to do with the remainder of the picture." Yeah. Sex had nothing to do with the life of a film about a young woman trying to find meaning and understanding in the '60s. Sex had nothing to do with college too, I guess. Again, seriously? Not that things would necessarily be different today -- this much nudity and sex, a NC-17 rating and limited release in certain art houses would be quite likely. Or, be a foreign film.
I previously noted that the director (and writer) provided commentary for some scenes. Watching those scenes might give you an abbreviated taste of the film as a whole. The film is a lot more concerned about providing slightly twisted social commentary of roughly the role of socialism and the class society in Sweden through the eyes of a somewhat naive drama student than satisfying our prurient interest. This underlines the silliness of the obscenity findings. The first half of the film has one abbreviated sex scene (fit for a 'R' rated film and mostly lead-up) and a sort of parody [earlier we had a scene about Lena comforting the king, the commentary noting that it reflected the fact one political party supported the end of the monarchy) of Lena on a retreat that involves her being topless. The rest is talk, of varying degrees of interest. The "bore" that was referenced, though it is of some interest up to a point. There is more nudity and sex after this, but the talk/explicit ratio is still leaning toward the former.
The whole thing is a somewhat self-indulgent lark with a pleasant lead with nudity and sex (but those who like that sort of thing can find a lot more in other films) mixed in. It being so controversial is clearly a sign of the era, though again, if a film in this country today tried to get wide release with similar content, good luck with that. How about a re-release as tribute? Film Forum?