Talk:I Am Curious (Yellow)

Not a porno film
This is not a "pornographic film"; don't take my word, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that it was not pornographic (see the article). Can we remove that stub label? — Walloon 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court does not get to pass on truth. 72.144.198.53 06:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was accused of being porn, arguably is softcore porn, and the Supreme Court decision had a significant impact on porn. See Sexploitation film Willy turner (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I would have to agree with user:Walloon. I don't think every film with gratuitous nudity or which causes an uproar is porn.  Porn producers set out to make porn, and may be secretive in distribution, but they don't tend to argue that it's "not porn."  There is a distinction.  Technically, as I understand it, the Supreme court ruled on whether or not it was "obscene," not the same thing.  But porn is a separate genre, and there are clear differences in approach and execution.  At the time, this fell into a category, 'art films.'  Censors equated them with porn, but they were usually foreign films, produced to different standards, and only lumped together with porn in certain conservative markets, mostly in the U.S., and often in the 'old south.'  I don't expect my argument will sway consensus much, as the template/category has probably been in place for a decade, but none of that makes it porn.  rags (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an F.Y.I., Supreme Court rulings don't mean diddly squat. No one in their right mind would say that Roe vs. Wade meant that abortion is ethical, when clearly there are people who think otherwise. Also, they have a history of making shitty-ass decisions. Ever heard of Plessy vs. Ferguson or Dred Scott? MightyArms (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The style of Bergman??
I've seen a lot of Bergman, and I have a hard time imagining how I Am Curious shares any stylistic elements with his work. Perhaps some of the themes are comparable: identity, jealousy, emotional breakdown. But I Am Curious is very much a new wave film. Bergman's style is not new wave at all. His films are sometimes poetic, minimalist, surreal, but not new wave. The prominent stylistic elements of I Am Curious are film within a film, jump cuts, and footage of non-actors on the street(in the interviews). Bergman does not do any of these things in his films. It would be more accurate to compare this film to the work of Truffaut or (early) Godard. However, it is possible for Sjöman to be influenced by Bergman without his films taking on Bergman's style, in the way that Godard was influenced by Hawkes, Ford, and Hitchcock.
 * There seems to be one scene in the film where one character plays with an illustrated article about Bergman. Since Bergman was a cineast auteur superstar and Swedish grand old man at the time, it's not strange that he's being referenced. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And the movie is about?
Any chance we could actually talk about movie and what it is about instead of the history about it? — 198.62.72.2 08:33, 2 February 2007) (UTC)


 * The film doesn't really have a plot. It's a commentary on the socialist caste system in Sweden. It's about two hours long, which is time better served taking a nap.


 * While plot should not replace a discussion of an influential movie's place in history, this article certainly is lacking either a plot synopsis or, if the movie could not be said to have a plot as such (as the second commenter implies), some description of the content beyond one or two individual scenes. Lawikitejana 06:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One of my friends saw this film, and summed it up perfectly by "It was so boring I almost slept through the dirty parts. In one scene, Lena and her boyfriend have sex in the branches of what is labeled "The Largest Tree In Europe". While it is mildly interesting as an athletic feat, it is in no way erotic. JHobson2 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge
If nobody objects, I'm gonna merge this and I Am Curious (Blue) into one article at the disambiguation page (I Am Curious). I think they would be better covered in one article instead of two. I've started it in my sandbox and I'm having some format issues, but I'm trying to work those out -- as well as expand it a bit. --Dookama 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I kind of object... I don't mind an article that covers them both instead of a disambig page, but, just how we work with infoboxes and all it is better to have two pages. Kind of like how there is a Star Wars page and then pages for each individual film... even though this is only two... gren グレン 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I just looked into your sandbox... I think you should add to each of the sections.... and not have an infobox.... gren グレン 12:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you have any other suggestions, feel free to leave 'em here or on my talk page or, uh . . . wherever. :P --Dookama 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot
It's not that I have a great problem with the image... but, I'd like to see some source citing that it's one of the most important scenes... We tend to have needless obscenity... and I'd rather have it well sourced that it is the most important screenshot to have. gren グレン 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I put it in and I'm new around here and unfamiliar with the citing and all that. --Dookama 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

court decisions
I changed the sentence about the court battles because as far as I can see the US Supreme Court decision in Byrne v. Karalexis, 401 U.S. 216 (1970) didn't overturn the state anti-obscenity law that regulated motion pictures; it seems to be a purely procedural decision.

I did a whole lot of searching, but unfortunately I couldn't find the decisions of the district court and the court of appeals online. In addition to the sources I cited in the article ( and ), here are some links in case someone wants to pursue this further and provide more detail:

Three texts summarizing parts of the district court decision:
 * A web page from which it seems that the "decision in 1969, reached by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York" was the relevant one
 * [ http://www.amazon.com/Am-Curious-Yellow-Vilgot-Sjoman/dp/0936839538 A book review] of the book about the film that says it contains "an extensive transcript for the US District obscenity trial that the film had incited"
 * (p. 913, footnote 2)
 * (p. 1205, which says that the district court ruled that the Massachusetts statue "might be unconstitutional when applied" under certain conditions)
 * (p. 461, which says that the district court assumed the film to be obscene, but held that since there is a constitutional right to view obscene films, it must also be allowed to show them)

A TIME article from Oct. 5, 1970 says: "The film I Am Curious (Yellow) will be reviewed again by the [Supreme] court. Last term the Justices adjourned without deciding whether or not the First Amendment forbids prosecution for showing an allegedly obscene film to an adult audience forewarned of the film's explicit sex scenes."

A film review gives the name of the case as "A motion picture named I Am Curious – Yellow versus the United States Government" (which appears nowhere else) and claims that "the Supreme Court decreed that it was ‘not utterly without redeeming social value’" (which appears nowhere in the US Supreme Court's Byrne v. Karalexis decisions).

Some other important US Supreme Court decisions on obscenity:
 * Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
 * Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
 * Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
 * United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973)

Some texts that seem to have copied some or all of the previous wording of the Wikipedia article:
 * a paper on Catherine Breillat
 * a blog entry
 * a web page of the Office for Contemporary Art Norway
 * an ebay movie listing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joriki (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some problems with the case history on this page, so I propose the following:

In 1968, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the film was not obscene as a matter of law. 404 F2d 196 (1968). A year later, the obscenity issue was again litigated in a different jurisdiction when a special three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction that prevented the state from taking legal action against the movie house operators. 306 F Supp 1363 (1969). The state bypassed the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, appealing directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, which temporarily stayed the injunction, 396 US 976 (1969), and subsequently held that the district court had erroneously issued its injunction. 401 US 216 (1971). Hip cat hobbes (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Two fixes to make
I improved the text describing the newly-added image for the Guldbagge Award. (1) Olof Palme's participation is mentioned by IMDb here; please link in this reference properly if you can. It doesn't mention a dual role, my interpretation of "bi roll" in the original image's text. (2) Lena Nyman won the Guldbagge Award for best actress. This should be in the box summary, so add that if you can. Thanks! --72.70.24.236 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Biroll" doesn't mean "dual role", but "supporting role", literally "by-role". 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot
Could someone please add a paragraph describing the subject of the film? ike9898 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception
"Hostile" is an inaccurate description of Vincent Canby, the quoted critic's, review. Only half of a sentence is quoted. Here is the full sentence:

"I'm not very fond of this sort of moviemaking, which tries to disarm conventional criticism by exploiting formlessness as meaningful itself, but I like Sjoman's sense of humor and sense of humanity, and his obvious affection for Lena."

66.44.76.103 (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Description of poster
The poster File:CuriousYellowPoster.jpg includes a small notice (probably a sticker) saying that the movie is restricted to adult admission, using a logo with the word "Restricted" in white letters on a black background in the shape of a key logo. As a long-time resident of Ontario, Canada, this is very familiar to me as the logo used here at the time this movie was released and for years afterwards. What I don't know is whether this specific logo was used only in Ontario or if it other censor/classification systems elsehwere used it as well.

However, based on the working hypothesis that the logo is specific to Ontario (i.e., that the poster photographed is one that was used at a cinema in Ontario), I have changed the caption "US release poster" to read "North American release poster". I would expect the poster to be the same throughout the US and English-speaking parts of Canada anyway. --70.27.114.68 (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Am Curious (Yellow). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504184015/http://gallerymsquared.com/gallery/?page_id=405 to http://gallerymsquared.com/gallery/?page_id=405

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A new reference in the “in popular culture” section
In the book adaptation of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino expands on cliff booth and his experiences. One such experience is seeing “I am curious (yellow)” with a date. I was hoping to see this added to the page. 2601:2C5:C700:BA0:A522:A8CF:76E3:4818 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)