User reviews

Looking at the number of imdb voters for both the I Am Curious films, it seems that few who watch the first end up watching the second (there are 194 votes for Yellow, and 46 for Blue). That's not surprising. Four hours of near-randomness is surely a bit difficult to sit through. And the four hours provide limited rewards. Yet, as one of the few who actually did finish both films, I hardly feel unrewarded. In fact, I think, having seen it all, the sum is greater than the parts. Sjöman does present a kaleidoscope of emotion and thoughts, all very fragmentary, of course, but the fragments are currently drifting around in my mind. I Am Curious might not be a ton of fun to sit through, but I think the films will be a part of me for longer than I might have originally guessed. As a closing note, I must say that the films' lead actress, Lena Nyman, gives an extraordinary performance, which is another aspect that isn't very obvious if you've just seen Yellow. She runs the entire gamut of emotion. As an actress who is certainly being horribly objectified by her director, she ends up coming out on top of it. If there's one thing I'll take out of the films, it's the sight of her dark, sad, curious gaze. She went on to better things, for example, Ingmar Bergman's Autumn Sonata. Bergman surely realized her talent. I don't remember much in that film besides the two lead performances, who, even if there were a thousand other talented performers in it, would have drawn every ounce of attention towards themselves. I'll have to check it out a second time some day to find Nyman. 7/10.

After seeing both films, I'd characterize Yellow as the more light-hearted of the two, but Blue has much more to offer. It might just be that I was more prepared for the semi-random storytelling, but I spent less time feeling lost and/or jerked around during Blue - while still not having an actual plot, it seemed to spend more time on the people and the relationships, to good effect. Lena is facing more of the world, getting closer to the people she meets, and facing the "dark side" of people's personalities. Friends turn out to be not fully committed to her politics, or they treat each other poorly, or they do not care for her as she wishes they would. It's not always a pretty movie, but it's definitely one worth seeing.

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.

Like Yellow, you will find a list of faults in most other reviews but I want to stick with "I liked it." This is where Lena becomes endearing, especially when she interviews a character in a car. The interesting questions were her own, asked with realism and the responses were too. The sex was mostly and genuinely comedic with just breasts and rears like Yellow. Like Yellow again, the political scenes were like flashbacks to history. It's a good companion to Yellow showing more insight into the character of Lena. The scene of her jumping into a shallow lake is a riot. The good was good, the bad was tolerable, resulting in an another interesting movie.

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.

"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.