Fruits of Passion

The movie maker wanted to make a kinki movie. Then he decided to make an artistic movie. He makes neither. The movie is suppose to take off where The story of O left. It never took off. Sir Stevens takes O to a Hong-Kong brothel so that she can prove her submission by whoring for him. She finds a love of her own. There is no erotism, there is no logic, there is no beauty. Be aware though, there are some very explicit sex scenes but still the movie remains very stale till the end. A disappointment.

The two main characters are taken from The Story of O. As is the initial premise in the novel, O submitting (to a brothel in this film) to Sir Stephen to prove her devotion. This movie takes place in China in the 1920's. A major side story is the uprising by some Chinese citizens. A smaller side story is a young man who has become infatuated with O. Even more side stories on other smaller characters.

The acting is good but none stand out. There are some very brief scenes of unstimulated sex but I would not call it hardcore. The camera work is excellent. I love how often the camera pans across a scene. A picture says a thousand words but this is ten thousand.

I like movies that have several pieces to make the story as this one does. Several interesting characters from each piece. Some might be put off by the sex and S&M scenes but they just were vehicles to help tell the story.

The acting could have been better tho wasn't bad. While O was the central character, it felt like something was missing. Still, I enjoyed watching.

... in particular, I was thinking that "Lust, Caution" blended the aspects of eroticism and uprising/terrorism much more effectively - not helped here by (in my view) the relatively unconvincing acting of the lovelorn young rebel.

Having said that, I was not at all impressed by Just Jaeckin's "Story of O" (the alleged predecessor), and this is better than that, IMHO. And Kinski is clearly having a lot of "fun" (of his own kind). I can't decide whether Illiers' relative blankness is actually an appropriate asset, given the context and character, or also a problem.

Meanwhile, there's some nice touches of humour, and the cinematography and set design is pretty good, so it doesn't feel at all like "a cheap piece of trash" - even if some may think that's exactly what it is :)

Worth a look.

This will not be a positive experience for everyone. Several things would be offputting. Most would be offended that it is based on a book with trivial sensibilities. There is explicit sex. The nature of the thing slips often into visual symbolism. Many languages are spoken. Some of the text is sophomoric. Obsession, perversion, sexual quest, caste and political struggle are mixed up with no apparent coherence. Advertised as erotic, it is anything but.

And yet. It is deliciously placed between Breilliat and Resnais and is better than most from them. If you watch a lot of movies and deeply, like I do, the better ones form a sort of tapestry that reinforce each other. Two of my "must-see" films are "Pillow Book" and "Fitzcarraldo," which this lean up against. Not of the same caliber of course, but there's a resonance.

There are some marvelous experiences here. For instance, the young girl is newly established in her sparse cell at the brothel. She has put on the bottom of her dress and stands at the night window, pining for Kinski (who is with another lover). Across the screen on the wall is her shadow, a lovely, lonely pose, breasts alert. She moves away from the window in impatience. The shadow remains unmoved.

Another: flashback to O as a girl, imprisoned by her father in a chalk square while he walks away and a clown rolls a flaming hoop about. The receding man turns into Kinski. Flash forward to the prostituted O, sewing the torn photo of Kinski, just before she is placed in a flying swan device to be sodomized by an aging client.

Another prostitute in the brothel is an aging actress. To get her to "perform," they set up a camera to pretend they are shooting, "Sunset Blvd." wise. We see this a couple times, then it shifts from the pretend movie to a (presumed) past, real movie. This raises an issue that leads to her suicide in the fashion of Ophelia. Her body in the pond is lifted by a rising piano.

The story (the parts that don't matter to me) is influenced by Kinski, partly autobiographical and right before we see the same character (in a similar white suit) in "Fitzcarraldo." The madness matters.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

First I need to say that this film is not a porn movie nor it is trash. If you expect an erotic film, you will be disappointed, although there are some sexual scenes. The text of the DVD sleeve (I own the Anchor Bay version) awakens wrong expectations for this movie and contains false information about the story. Instead, I found its photography a very beautiful artwork. It is made with a high sense for colors, great images, perfectionism in detail and a beauty in its pictures that is found rarely in newer movies in the western world. Maybe this is one reason why it may bore some people with a more speedy expectation for films then it is shown in this slowly developing story. The exotic environment of the story is a brothel in Hongkong, 1920, where "O", a French girl, surrenders totally to Mr. Steven (Klaus Kinski), desperately hoping to reach his heart.

If this was an American movie, it would have surely a happy end - but it is an eastern and sad story of an unfulfilled love. I find it worth to watch it more than once to enjoy its artwork and to understand its deep symbolism. It is not an easy film, especially for those used to watch Hollywood-productions only. Be prepared to watch it consciously and with full attention, otherwise you might not like it. I highly recommend it for people with a sense for somehow old-fashioned esthetics, art, eastern culture, beautiful images, and, of course, it is a must-see for all the fans of the greatest German actor, Klaus Kinski.