Theresa, the shop keeper of the Ying Yang Sausages company realizes an enormous problem when she realizes she has Japanese competition called the Yang Ying sausages company. She and her ... See full summary »
A metaphysical mystery involving a university student's camera getting stolen, and the thief then committing suicide. Looking back upon the event, the situation comes to be questioned if it happened at all.
Based on a true story set in pre-war Japan, a man and one of his servants begin a torrid affair. Their desire becomes a sexual obsession so strong that to intensify their ardor, they forsake all, even life itself.Written by
Allen Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Demand to see the film at its first appearance at the Cannes Film Festival was so high, 13 screenings were arranged. See more »
I've got to pee. Okay with you?
There's no need to leave. Do it here.
Inside of Sada, all nice and warm.
You're mad! It's impossible to do both at the same time.
See more »
When UK censor James Ferman first saw the film in 1976 he suggested that it could be shown in licensed cinema clubs after the scene where a young boy's penis is yanked by Sada had been removed completely to comply with the Protection of Children Act. It was not officially submitted for UK cinema release until 1991 due to the film's graphic sexual nature and, although this print was fully uncut in terms of sexual footage, it featured an optical edit during the scene with the boy. Instead of removing the scene Ferman cropped off the bottom and far right of the screen, thus allowing the audience to realize the instability of Sada's character while removing the offending shot. The film first received a home video/DVD release in 2000 by Nouveaux and this print retained the optical edit, though the print itself was a shorter version and missed 6 minutes 15 secs of assorted dialogue and footage (the sexual footage remained uncut). The 2009 UK cinema reissue again featured the shorter print though this version cuts out the scene with the misbehaving child completely. See more »
I wrote a review of this film 15 years ago in which I claimed it was quite sophisticated. It was found helpful by 71 out of 89 people on this site. How naive I was, and, I must admit, pretentious. I am a good deal wiser now and I see the film in a completely different light. Now all I see is subversion and misogyny. Specifically it is a desperate effort to subvert conventional society by depicting heterosexual sex as baleful and destructive. Why would the director want to do such a thing? Think about it. It won't take more than a few seconds.
This kind of thing obviously used to pass for art. Not any more.
74 of 107 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this