the audience applauded

That was an excellent one.

Overrated

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Early on in his wildly experimental career, Dusan Makavejev was proving himself to be one of world cinema's most unique talents. With his brilliant, genre bending masterpiece "Love Affair", he crafts a simplistic, beautiful, and devastating portrait of one of film history's most tragic romances. Of course, Makavejev's vision is not limited by the boundaries of conventional storytelling and tone. Spliced in between the romantic tragicomedy are interviews with a sexologist and a criminologist, as well as various bits of stock footage depicting Yugoslavian politics.This often weird and humorous version of a brutally sad tale is among my new favorite films thanks to its entertainment value, stunningly unique vision, wild sense of humor, and strong emotional impact. Makavejev pulls no punches, he allows the tragedy to burst in a chaotic explosion of tears, refusing to hold back. By the end, i was so struck with melancholy that I could hardly believe what I had just witnessed. This is a film that combines so many themes and genres, and yet manages to portray a semi-tradition story that anyone can follow. Sprinkling bits and pieces of the charmingly surreal and avant garde all over this saddening love story, Makavejev forms one of the finest, most unfortunately underrated and obscure cinematic romances of all time.

"It's been two months since I've been with a man – and that's a long time for a Hungarian woman." – Eva Ras, professional HungarianAnd then Aligrudic mentions that his colleagues at work constantly make jokes about easy Hungarian women. I wouldn't be surprised if Eva had suggested this part for the dialogue. Not that she is proud of her heritage as much as her whoritage.A scandalous film at the time, features for the first time a nude actress in a YU movie, and I mean completely nude – and in lots of scenes. The only reasons any sane person would want to check out this laughably pretentious "art" film are: the time-machine factor of watching an old YU movie (the nostalgic factor), and of course the opportunity to see what Eva looked like half a century ago – and in the nude. And there sure is a lot to see; she had a great body, especially the boobs. There is so much nudity in this 60s flick that some western censors wanted to play this in sex theaters.It turns out that Aligrudic didn't kill Eva intentionally but sort of accidentally bumped her into the well after she'd been literally flinging herself onto him for a while in what is a tremendously stupid scene. A totally idiotic "plot-twist" that sort of neatly wraps up this pointless art-crowd mediocrity written/directed by an overrated "artiste" who undoubtedly knelt in front of his Bunuel and Fellini posters for years before finally getting a chance from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to do his own crap. (Is that why there are totally irrelevant scenes with Marxist imagery? You bet.) It was quite obvious that Aligrudic "killed" Eva, but this never was meant to be a whodunit. It's more of a hudinit – a phony magic act intended to sell random themes meshed together as art.Aligrudic falls into an alco-depression when he finds out that Eva is pregnant – and that she doesn't want the kid. And who could blame her? The kid is either from Aligrudic or Ljuba Moljac; either way she loses. I mean, have you seen Aligrudic's real son? He is a carbon copy of the actor; a top-tier Serb politician, a corrupt liar, a former member of the country's ruling Far Right party called DSS. I have personally seen that man stumble around Vracar (downtown Belgrade) in a half-drunken stupor, which has a kind of poetic irony to it. (His party is infamous for its barfly "intellectuals".) Did Eva get pregnant from Moljac or from Aligrudic? Did Aligrudic find out that the kid may not be his? We don't know the answer to any of that, because the director is far more concerned with urgent matters – such as giving the viewer a history of the European grey rat, and a "reminder" that "even Rembrandt drew the sexual act". Somehow all of this is connected to rats and sex. Yes, rats have lots of sex, "one rat-pair produces 1000 in a mere year", we are told. And this connects to Eva's life and murder how exactly?There are many art-fart BS scenes in this vague movie. Scenes and sub-themes are thrown in almost randomly, and the viewer – afraid that he might embarrass himself that he didn't "understand" the movie's point – has no option but to conclude how good the movie was, despite being confused by it, and despite maybe not even liking it. THAT is how wannabe "art" films function: they BLACKMAIL the easily bullied viewer into declaring the movie a success. It's peer pressure, that's all it is, just like on a school playground.Eva Ras is tailor-made for these kinds of indefinable, plot-free, weird-for-the-sake-of-it roles, because she doesn't have to act in the literal sense of the word. Her breasts do the talking in this kind of a film, while her synchronized mouth and the irrelevant stuff that comes out of it is subjected to a supporting role. The director is more concerned with throwing in stories about rats and Rembrandt, or speeches by college professors – whose mere presence somehow isn't supposed to make this movie more stupid than it already is. The director isn't really interested in characterization. We don't really find out that much about them. Maybe Eva and her boyfriends are a metaphor for rats? Look, give me a break, I'm doing my best with the guesses. Eva's trademark moronic and insincere smile somehow suits these kinds of superficial-character portrayals. Give her a role in a proper movie with proper characters, and she is lost; she has no clue how to play them so usually she ends up reciting the lines like a robot. She's a bad actress.The only reason I didn't give this nonsense less than a 4/10 is because it has that nostalgia factor that I spoke of. If I'd seen this back when it was released, I would have found it insufferably dull – aside from the nude scenes. Don't kid yourselves; there is no plot here to speak of. This is the type of director who is much more concerned with international notoriety and respect, with getting nominated for dumb awards at dumb European film festivals than providing the viewer with a proper finished product. Which one of you thought that watching Eva prepare and serve a meal was exciting to watch? Did anyone experience spontaneous cinematic orgasms from watching a boiler being installed in a bathroom? I assume you've prepared meals yourselves, right? Perhaps you even had the amazing privilege of watching the installation of a boiler, and in even more detail! Those are all irrelevant nonsensicalities we get from film-makers too lazy or incompetent to get down and dirty and create a story worthy of the big screen. Lars von Trier, yes, that means you too.

To the newcomer, especially to a work like Love Affair or The Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator, it might appear that the filmmaker Dusan Makavejev has attention deficit disorder. The guy isn't interested in stories like your Pappy filmmaker John Ford was. He comes from a country that has been through the war and revolution, but he's well aware of what the moving image can give to the intended (or unintended) viewer. His style goes from one thing to another in a snap, without fair warning. This is why, perhaps, the best entry point into his career is the scandalous, hilarious politi-sex docu-drama-comedy WR The Mysteries of the Organism. Once you get through that, and you want more, you can go on to his earlier works such as this one.In a way it's similar to WR in that it tells a very conventional, some would say uber-melodrama, story of a average-but-pretty switchboard operator who meets a rodent-catcher (aka sanitation worker) and they have a love affair. It has this, but Makavejev also cuts in clips from a sex doctor espousing about the nature of sex and phalluses in art, and how an egg is more than "just an omelet" and faces the audience directly with this. And, on top of this, we get every so often a fact about rodent over-populations and some political imagery and workers marching the in the street for good measure. For the filmmaker, this story of a girl and a man having a fling, mostly happy and only sad towards the end of their affair, when an unintentional betrayal occurs on the part of the girl, is just part of the woodwork, and we can take what we will what it means in context of rodents and sex... or a murder mystery for that matter.Some of the film is amusing in its sudden movements and cutaways. Take the scene where Isabella is trying to work late and the guy that runs the switchboard keeps teasing her sexually, trying to have his way. She finally gives in, very reluctantly, and we see her face is devastated. Immediately this cuts to a very scratchy-grainy film stock showing "Adam and Eve", a naked man and woman, in a circling movement in various sculpture-like poses. What does this mean? Why does Makavejev throw this in here? Perhaps as a practical joke, or as one of those self-conscious beats akin to Godard. But for him, it could mean everything or nothing. We get some blatant nudity, but none of the sex is too graphic; it's about average people, then made non-linear by a (somewhat) average murder case, and then made extraordinary by its editing style and fresh outlook on Yugoslavian love and work.In other words, expect a free-wheeling film that mixes real romance and satire, real documentary footage and breaking-the-fourth wall, melodrama and tragedy. It's not always exciting, and a little rough around the edges. For even the somewhat-fan of the director's, it's an anarchic treat.

That European cinema did things differently in the 1960s is not in doubt, as even directors from little-renowned cinematic cultures such as Yugoslavia delighted in new-found freedom. On one hand, "Switchboard Operator" is a simple tale of love, betrayal and tragedy in Belgrade, and as such captures some touching details about trapped lives in a totalitarian society. However, director Dusan Makavejev, clearly under the influence of Godard, adopts an offhand approach to his narrative, and introduces extraneous material at tangents to the main story. Most of this stuff is fascinating, particularly when he uses archive footage of Yugoslav history. Less successful are the interjections of two tedious academics, a sexologist and a criminologist, whose stern pronouncements jar against the film's capricious tone. Nonetheless, this is invigorating film-making which reaches into some strange regions. Despite an economical running time of 69 minutes, the film even finds time for a brief history of how the grey rat infested Europe!