Watch I Am Curious (Blue) For Free

A lot of fun.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The film "I am curious - blue" is the twin of "I am curious - yellow". In the film the producers even use this similarity between the two as an argument to recommend their acquisition ("Now also available in blue"). Since I already have reviewed the latter, the present comments can be succinct. Both films are made in the style of the nouvelle vague. This type of films appeared mainly in the roaring sixties and early seventies, launched by innovative producers. Both the blue and yellow version are political films, notably about Swedish life, and presented in the style of a documentary. Remember the wise words of the French writer Paulhan: "All I ask is that politicians change the world, and not also the truth". In fact the script is replete with bizarre arguments. One wonders what is meant to be satire and what not. Whereas the yellow version still contains a love story, of the leading woman Lena, the blue version is just a sequence of interviews. It addresses the then topics of interest: the inequality of income, nonviolent resistance, imprisonment, religion, and of course sexuality (including homosexual relations and sexual diseases). If men got pregnant, they would not think twins were so cute (joke, to keep this review entertaining). While in principle the reconsideration of the social norms was indeed befitting, "I am curious" follows the nasty New Left habit of abolishing all norms without replacement by new ones. The viewer is simply encouraged to experiment and discover his or her own boundaries (see the title). Evidently this is a poor recipe for success. Thus the "I am curious" couple tends to endorse stupidity, albeit presented in a tone of moral superiority. You do not have a dirty mind, but introspective pornographic moments. You are not sleeping around, but monogamically challenged. This qualifies the films as accurate images of the time, but also makes them out of date and somewhat unpleasant to watch. Moreover I find the blue version less funny than the yellow one. The reader may decide for him- or herself whether "I am curious" deserves a closer examination. Don't hesitate to leave a comment. I love it.

I Am Curious: Blue is the second version, almost interchangeable in the respects of a) certain scenes overlapping or just cut and pasted from version Yellow to version Blue and b) many similar themes and the same characters, following version Yellow. Both films look at Sweden in the late 1960s, and it's all filtered through the unique perspective of Vilgot Sjoman, who makes a cinematic smoothie, if you will, of documentary, 'making-the-movie' dramatic scenes, drama involving the character Lena, scientific type questions posed by Lena (in glasses of course!), and a good deal of sex and nudity to keep the art-houses lapping up at the mouth. It's also potentially one of the most pretentious art-house experiments ever concocted, but at the same time its own self-consciousness and "Hey, it's a movie about movies, so lets make this movie and then forget its a movie for a while until I, Sjoman, pop up on screen again" style has its advantages for the willing participant.Basically, there is no exact "plot" to either of the I Am Curious movies, and arguably even less so in Blue. While there is some connection to be made with Lena (Lena Nyman) and a married man, it's once again like Yellow mostly an amalgamation of interviews Lena does with everyday Swedes (topics this time range from wealth and jobs and income to religion to boys and girls at a dance) and Lena's wanderings in the Swedish countryside doing either her own kind of sociological experiments (or, as well, going skinny-dipping with a friend or not knowing she has scabies), or responding to Sjoman, who makes himself a character as a "director" of the project. It's hard to peg Sjoman, since he has created what is an alternate universe for himself to act in, which can be both fun and occasionally dull. Lena, however, is only somewhat talented as an actress, better at asking tough questions (I do love the scene with her and the Catholic stooge in the car) and taking her clothes off than giving a fully rounded performance.In general, from my point of view, Blue isn't quite as consistently fascinating as Yellow. It stands out fair enough as far as the parts go- everything involving the interviews or docu/drama type things like Lena bicycling the opposite way of protesters is at least captivating and at most some of the best stuff of either movies- but on the whole its experimental style doesn't flow quite as well. Yet I still recommend it because it's attached to the Yellow part - the only movie that comes in two versions! Sort of.

"Jag är nyfiken – Blue" is a more contemplative and somewhat less vibrant film than "Jag är nyfiken – Yellow." Much of Blue takes place outside of Stockholm, along rural byways in the north of Sweden - the land of the midnight sun - as Lena undertakes a journey to find her mother. The frenetic exuberance of Yellow is replaced by a sense of foreboding and gloom. The themes of religion, violence, lesbianism, marriage, impotency, and scabies all intertwine to create Blue's dour fabric. Also less evident in Blue is the "documentary-ing" of Vilgot Sjöman and his crew - although they do make several stunning appearances, for example, just before and after Lena and Börje's reunion, and again, very poignantly, near the end of the film. Overall, Blue strikes me as an interesting but less unconventional film than its sunny other-half.Having watched both Yellow and Blue now, I have an urge to sum up what I found and did not find in Sjöman's brilliant twins. In both films, Sjöman and Lena are unafraid to ask real people real questions. Their responses are presented to us without editorial remark or ridicule. This kind of authenticity never grows old. Sjöman and Lena, through hard work and improvisation, create scenes that are touching, funny, and dorky. Their work left me with feelings similar to those I had after watching Cassavetes' Shadows and Faces. At their best, Sjöman and Lena expose the contradictions that exist between people, between systems, between nations. However, although Sjöman has cast a wide net, there are many issues, read *contradictions*, that are noticeably missing from both Yellow and Blue. While lesbianism and female bisexuality is explored, male homosexuality is not. Neither alcohol, a substance that causes perennial anxiety among Swedes, nor drugs, another taboo, has a place in either film. Criticism of Franco and the US is prominent, while the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the ongoing oppression in both the Soviet Union and China and their satellites go unanalyzed. I mention this not as a rebuke of the films, but rather as a way of putting them in some kind of perspective.

I saw both of these movies on a double bill in 1970 (which means I actually paid to watch this rubbish). Interestingly, although I was very naive at the time, I was not the least bit turned on by any of the sexual content of the films, which was meant to be daring for the time. Furthermore, I could find no justification for the same movie being presented twice with different names (yellow and blue).Funny thing! I tried to submit this comment as above. However, the system told me I had to write 10 lines. My problem was thinking of 10 lines to discuss such junk. I notice that not too many people have commented on the movies. Either they have not seen them or they also had trouble with finding 10 lines.