User Reviews

A single still of naked revelers taken from this film, which I found in one of my father’s old magazines, had long intrigued me and, having been recently bowled over by Jancso'’s THE ROUND UP (1965), I leapt at the chance of acquiring the utterly barebones Italian DVD edition of it (despite knowing nothing of the quality of the disc itself). Actually, being an Italian production after all, I had wrongly assumed that (as was the case with the director’s other three films shot over there) it would eventually be shown at some point on late night Italian TV; however, in hindsight, its total invisibility for all these years isn’t that surprising. In fact, if I were pressed to pigeon-hole the movie, I’d say that had Walerian Borowczyk ever directed a screenplay co-written by Federico Fellini and Pier Paolo Pasolini, the end result might well have looked something like this. Ever since debuting at Cannes, the film has provoked either outrage or outright dismissals as “pornography with pretensions”; amusingly, in his enjoyable “Stracult” tome, Italian critic Marco Giusti proudly admits to having watched it several times on first release despite its having been confiscated twice by the prudish authorities!

Typically for Jancso', there is very little to relate plot-wise: as a matter of fact, this can be seen as simply an erotic fantasia on the infamous Mayerling affair in which the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Archduke Rudolph, carried out a suicide pact with his mistress. According to Jansco' and his regular Italian screenwriter Giovanna Gagliardo, however, the events were not so clear-cut. Although the film never strays from the Prince’s country estate, Jancso'’s realization of 19th Century Vienna is as visually sumptuous and technically elaborate as expected while the political subtexts as they relate to our modern age are equally important. Although this is the first film I’ve watched myself which dealt with this particular historical incident (there have been countless others over the years, with Anatole Litvak’s 1936, Max Ophuls’ 1940 and Terence Young’s 1968 versions being the best-known), it’s safe to assume that PRIVATE VICES AND PUBLIC VIRTUES is unlike any of them. For starters, most of the film’s running time is devoted to a marathon orgy to which the Archduke invites the younger generation of Austrian aristocrats to spite his father Emperor Franz-Joseph (a mask of whom is donned by several of the revelers). Apparently, a coup to overthrow the monarch had already failed and, consequently, the Archduke retired to his Mayerling estate to live a life of hedonistic abandon. Knowing full well that his family disapproved of his scandalous behavior, he further intends to shock the establishment by photographing the guests in flagrante and sending a copy out to his peers, thus exposing the veiled degeneracy of the ruling class. Ultimately, however, court officials present themselves at the gates of Mayerling to put a stop to the bacchanalian excesses…

The three main protagonists of the film are the Archduke, his stepbrother and stepsister who, forming an inseparable and incestuous ménage-a'-trois, are soon joined by an equally libertarian hermaphrodite when a circus troupe stops by the mansion. Having disposed of his boringly proper wife early on, the Archduke falls in love with this newest addition to his inner circle. Left alone after the guests have been dispersed, apprehended or executed (off-screen), the four lovers are ominously shrouded in white sheets like corpses during their final open-air rendezvous: an oppressively melancholy mood makes itself felt towards the end, aided immeasurably by Francesco De Masi’s lovely mournful score. The officials, ostensibly there to put a stop to the offending proceedings and arrest the Archduke, mostly stand around befuddled not knowing how to cope with the extraordinary situation – but their ultimate reaction is swift and abrupt, leading to an inspired slow-motion finale depicting the royal funeral procession.

Among the cast list, there were only three names that I recognized: the formidable Laura Betti (who as the loving nanny performs a handjob on her royal charge laying about in the hay!), Theresa Ann Savoy (she plays the crucial role of the hermaphrodite here and would later be equally central to Tinto Brass’ infamous CALIGULA [1979]) and Ilona Staller (adopting the evocative stage name of Cicciolina, she later became a highly popular porn star and, later still, an Italian MP – but, ironically, she is here wasted in the thanklessly chaste bit of the Archduke’s wife!). Although there is much full-frontal nudity involved, the only time it really approaches hardcore territory is the afore-mentioned scene with Betti – unless one wants to count the brief instances of bestiality when some of the guests decide to get it on with a few runaway turkeys!! Typically for Jancso', his characters resort to much communal dancing and game-playing – which is here joined by the improbably effective singing of English childhood ditties (including “Baa-Baa-Black Sheep”)! The sparse original music, then, has been mingled with classical pieces – notably Strauss’ “The Blue Danube” – and, appropriately enough, a handful of military marches.

I suppose that, for the uninitiated, all of the above would seem pointlessly perverse and terminally tedious but, stylistically, the film was something of a new departure for Jancso': while the intermittently creative editing (with especially notable use of ellipses) and his trademark long sequence-shots are still in evidence, he reportedly utilized 343 shots here as opposed to the lowly two digit figures of earlier works. On the downside, the video presentation is a bit dodgy at first: an obviously unrestored print has been utilized for the transfer (albeit uncut, as proudly announced on the sleeve of the Italian R2 DVD) but is still acceptable enough for its velvety cinematography and extreme handsomeness to shine nonetheless; the layer change, however, is quite roughly handled (at least by the Pioneer model I watched it on).

This is a fascinating historical film, created by Miklos Jancso - a highly competent director, and it is sad that it has become regarded by some as an essentially erotic work dressed up in the trappings of a historical drama. I find it hard to understand how any viewer who watches it carefully can fail to recognise that the Director was not attempting to create an erotic drama for its own sake (this would have been much easier to do free of the constraints associated with the historical theme), but had what he felt was an important message to convey through his largely fictional story. Remember that the events portrayed in this film have had a major influence on the lives of most of us. The death of Crown Prince Rudolf and his mistress in 1889, was a fundamental link in the chain of events which led to the start of the war of 1914-18, and subsequently to the development of World War II. At the time, these deaths were officially attributed by the Hapsburg government to a suicide pact which followed their recognition that the couple would never be able to marry; but right from the start many commentators (both nationally and internationally) suggested that foul play was a more probable explanation. The full story was exceedingly complex and had more twists than most detective novels, but there can be no doubt that the Hapsburg authorities attempted to conceal many of these facts, adding fuel to speculations that the Emperor himself may have been involved in some sort of plot designed to end Rudolf's illicit liaison with his mistress, Baroness Maria Vetsera. This is the story line followed in the film which suggests that Rudolf was attempting to force Franz Joseph to abdicate by gaining the support of the Austrian society of the time for a more liberal social order; and that Franz Joseph either planned or condoned the assassination of the couple in order to avoid their licentious activities continuing to embarrass the Imperial Court.

I believe it is intrinsically unlikely that Franz-Joseph would have ever contemplated the assassination of his son, the heir to the Hapsburg throne, however acutely he had been embarrassed by his behaviour. After more than six centuries of continuous rule by the same family, the Hapsburg dynasty was almost unique; and throughout Franz Joseph's long life devotion to the continuation of this dynasty had been the major driving force for most of his activities. He had little respect for his brothers son, through whom the succession would pass, and it is recorded that he never once spoke to the great nephew who was his eventual successor during the remaining 27 years of his rule. He must have been aware that his death would constitute a major crisis which the empire itself might not survive; and it is hard to believe that, whatever the provocation, he would deliberately have done anything to create such a crisis. There are at least two other more credible explanations for the assassination of Crown Prince Rudolf. Over the centuries the Hapsburg empire had expanded, more by marriage than by conquest, until it incorporated a vast array of diverse ethnic groups which became difficult to hold together after the Napoleonic wars released their tide of libertarianism and nationalism. One revolt in Hungary was suppressed, but the Empress persuaded her husband to make a very conciliatory settlement with the Hungarians in 1867 which effectively created what became known as the joint Austro-Hungarian Empire. Rudolf was also strongly supportive of Hungarian aspirations, and this antagonised many members of the Imperial old school. Some of them may well have decided to take steps to ensure that Rudolf would never succeed Franz-Joseph as Emperor. An alternative explanation for his death is supported by near deathbed testimony from Countess Zita, the wife of Emperor Karl, Franz Joseph's eventual successor who inherited the imperial throne in 1916, following the assassination of his uncle in Sarajevo in 1914 and the death of the old Emperor during the resulting world war. Empress Zita lived to the age of almost 90, dying in 1989 fourteen years after this film was produced. Before her death she recorded accounts of Hapsburg family conversations which suggested that Rudolf's death followed an approach from French authorities seeking to gain his support for an attempt to persuade Franz Joseph to abdicate so that Rudolph could introduce a more liberal regime which internationally would support the French rather than Germany. Rudolf had indignantly rejected this proposition and reported it to his father. His assassination at Meyerling followed - presumably by French agents or their Austrian sympathisers. Her account was largely ignored at the time it was first published, but three years after her death (and several years after this film was released)it was supported by late autopsies of the bodies of the two victims which showed that, contrary to the official accounts, Baroness Vetsera had not been shot but had been battered to death, and that Rudolf had fired six shots from his revolver before he died. It is interesting to speculate how this new information might have changed the message Jancso was attempting to pass on, if it had been available when the film was produced.

We are now never likely to know what actually happened; but if, like me, you do not believe Franz Joseph was directly responsible for the death of his son, you can still enjoy this film and its message that the old order will eventually have to yield to the pressures created by a younger and more virile generation. It is an important film which should be made available as a DVD, but be aware that whilst the Rudolf of the film is just a libertine who is something of a caricature, the historical Crown Prince appears to have been a well travelled, cultivated individual with remarkably progressive views who was highly regarded by most of those that had anything to do with him.

Which makes it sound dull, but more on that later. Read the review by ArpadGabor to get some background information on the historical context of the movie. The motives are clear in the movie, but it shines a new light on some things I guess. One thing is for sure though: If people mistake this as pornography (as the reviewer also wrote), they are dead wrong.

This is like a study of society. One sided (rich people) it may be, but it's still vaguely intriguing to see how boredom gets them and pushes them to do crazy things. Like the scene almost at the beginning in the hay, which coincidently is the only scene that actually could lead to the pornographic conclusion. We do have a lot of nudity though and the love making is diverse.

Some people will be offended by that (especially because we're not only seeing "regular" couples/intercourse). This is by no means titillating or anything, but appalling? Maybe, depends on your threshold for such things.

You also don't really know the background on most of the people on screen or their relationship towards each other. While this adds to the mystery it's also frustrating and not really satisfying (no pun intended). A little more background and a little more fleshed out characters would've gone a long way. As it is, it's a decent film, with a neat message

The Australian video release cover of Miklos Jancso's 1975 ode to sexual freedom and personal rebellion had it placed alongside pornography in Australian video stores when it was released in the 1980s (alongside other classics like In The Realm of The Senses and A Zed and Two Noughts). It features naked bodies moving and lying all over one another in a wildly joyous orgy. Once you watch the film, you realise this is no simple recitation of the pleasures or mechanics of the flesh.

This is a fascinating film which can be aligned for many reasons with Pasolini's Salo (they were both made almost in parallel). Both films are subversive historical studies of human sexuality and the treatment of the human body as a political object. Or more simply, the way bodies are always at the centre of the forces of power. The two films are very different - but not absolutely distinct. Both do concern the events at a distant place where sources of political and social power subvert the order of things. In Salo, however, it is an insatiable facistic power which reproduces itself through acts of abuse and murder. In Private Vice..., it is a subversive power of a less annihilistic order aiming to alter order by embracing passions and overturning the military order. Quite the opposite to Pasolini's much more bleak vision of politics in the shadow of modern forms of exploitation since WW2.

Private vice, Public Virtue follows a rebel son embracing the ideals of sexual freedom, dionysian joys such as wine and song, and the rebellious refusal to accept the orders of absent elders. The scenes where they mock the military ruler with caricatured masks as the army returns from battle is one such example. But throughout, the film seeks to alter roles and power structures. Women wield dildoes, nakedness is not the domain of women as in so many other films and sexual expression is an unstoppable force. The film is both a beautiful, utopian vision and a tale of the violent power of history.

Some speculate Prince Rudolph of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, knew that he would be thwarted from properly ruling his vast empire. And that he would not be allowed to marry his mistress. So out of depression & frustration with his family & ministers, he offed himself & his girl. Jansco's film suggests that he was so debauched & that his girl was hermaprodite, that the Austrian police were ordered to kill him Who knows.? But Jansco found a lush villa & grounds & littered it w/ beautiful naked women and men in orgiastic mode. Easy on the eyes. for sure..

I was always taught that if you had nothing nice to say about anything, don't say anything at all but I cannot and will not hold my tongue at trash like this being given 'artistic merit' by arty farty long haired, pipe smoking bohemians in tweed jackets and cravats just because they want to be seen as intellectuals who 'get it'

They're like those whiney voiced art commentators who always see more in a painting than is actually there insisting that a particular brush stroke was clearly an indication of the artists turbulent personal circumstances. Put a sock in it for gawds sake!

They can claim that this film is historically significant..... it is not. They can claim it's culturally important....it is not. They can claim the director had a higher vision and was breaking new ground...don't make me laugh!!!!

There is literally nothing new or clever about people taking their kit off and running around naked outdoors. They were making sepia movies of this back in Lumieres day, at least back then we didn't have suffer through boring, minimalist and so called 'profound' dialogue to go with it.

These classless, 'experimental' movies of the 70's were nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to the liberation from movie censorship as if they wanted revenge for the years of suppression.

All of these so called 'genius' directors were nothing of the sort they were just trying to plaster as much nudity onto our screens as possible, the more nudity they dared to exhibit, the more acclaim they felt they deserved, and should they cram their movie with enough pubic hair to fill a mattress and label it as 'art' they could climb to the very top of the avant garde tree.

It was really a very sad and depressing time for cinema, great dialogue was sidelined, great stories were shelved, I mean, who needs great dialogue or stories when you can have two naked people having a minimal conversation or a one word exchange while jumping on a trampoline holding a cabbage.

Get over yourselves. Next time you're having an 'It's the Arts' gathering with a bunch of fellow pseudo intellectual lefty luvvies over a bottle of Rioccha and rare cheeses as you ruminate over which one of these experimental directors were the best, think of how sad and pathetic you all actually sound...the answer is none of them!

This is an excellent film, with an unfortunate and misguided bad reputation. Partly because Jancso antagonised the critics by including explicit (for its time) sex when they had been used to more "political" content. Jancso used the sexuality in his film to point out that we live in a repressive society and showed that the characters in his film were willing, up until the point of death, to live out their free attitudes towards sexuality. This was and still is a subversive issue as sexuality still seems to need some dismal excuse for inclusion in non-pornographic films. In this film Jancso was bold enough to present eroticism within a deliberately anarchic context. Contrary to other readers comments this film is neither boring nor rubbish. The fact also that it has homosexual imagery disturbs a lot of narrow minded viewers, but there again Jancso showed these images to represent a multi-sexual utopia. This utopia of course in the film had to be destroyed. You can't get more political than that.

A naked guy jumps around his palatial estate. He kisses girls and hugs guys. All the while musicians play something in the background. This takes forever so I started fast-forwarding. He and his crew prepare for some lavish party. Soon after the party begins the clothes start coming off as the guests dance and giggle in a scene that takes forever. As the night progresses inhibitions start falling as well. Some guys in uniform appear and witness the debauchery. The naked guy also wears occasionally a uniform. Next day, more uniformed guys show up to threaten the guy but things don't turn out as they planned.

Private Vices, Public Pleasures is absolute junk unless you enjoy ridiculous time-piece musicals mixed with some aberrant sexual stuff. Story-wise there's not much going on. There some tasteless twist about the identity of one of the girls there.

As other reviews point out, the characters here are very freely based on historically characters but knowing that doesn't make this movie any better. Even if you're looking for titillation, this movie offers very little except for male genitalia.

Lots of information here in other reviews about the films historical context and ambitions, and also the directors other work and background. For me this film is from a time when film makers were not tied to mast of narrative, long lingering shots abound, with beautiful graceful composition , and the camera holding on little moments of reverie. The nudity is irreverent and celebratory , again capturing candid moments, and as one reviewer stated an almost dream like atmosphere is achieved. Also the use of diagetic and non-diagetic sound is playfully used and intertwined, with musicians playing the soundtrack itself on screen. A wonderful example of European cinema from a lost time.

Not much happens in this movie. They dance, very very much, faster dances, slower dances, very lascivious, very anemic, as if all the characters are in an endless trance. They ride, horses, but especially people, yes, they have sex almost non-stop, the whole film is a continuous orgy, even when they dance, and when they drink champagne with some aphrodisiac substances. The subject of the movie? The nakedness! Or, better said, the emptiness! The men show what they have, the women what they don't, plenty of pubic hair fills the screen from start to finish. You will see Laura Betti, known from serious roles in Italian political films, here old and ugly, in an embarrassing scene, masturbating the main character, Rudolf played by Lajos Balázsovits. In another scene you will see her almost kissing prince Rudolph penis. Actually, the penis of Lajos Balázsovits is the principal subject of the film, you will see that penis all the film. If you resist to watch it all. In terms of style, genre and atmosphere, the film resembles "Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom" by Pier Paolo Pasolini, "Immoral Tales" by Walerian Borowczyk and "Caligula" by Tinto Brass. We can't speak of acting performances, everything is like a bad filmed amateur theater play.

For many, this film is pure pornography with a lot of pretension.

But, for some -'in the know'- it is a historical allegory reinterpreting the real-life "Mayerling affair," in which the Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince Rudolph and his mistress, the Baroness Maria Vetsera, committed suicide at the family hunting lodge, Mayerling, because they were not allowed to marry. The official records of the deaths were long hidden, then destroyed and the public's imagination was captured for decades to come with the mysteries surrounding the love/political affairs of the ruling society.

The film director Jancsó, having long artistic controversies of his own, suggests that contrary to this official version, the lovers were indeed assassinated by his father, Emperor Franz Josef. Rudolph and his friends were in direct opposition with the world of the Emperor on many issues and used plots to convince him that his time was past, and that it was now the moment to allow the Young&New to rise to power. Some of those plots consisted of attracting the youth of the best families in the Austro-Hungarian Empire to their castle involving them in giant orgies. Photographs were taken during these orgies and sent to the Emperor, in order to blackmail him and convince him to let the new order rule (?!). After the soldiers -led by the Austrian secret police- shot the couple, their corpses were arranged suggesting a romantic suicide pact-to avoid scandal or radical overthrow of a society obsessed with image.

In this movie, Jancsó is inventing a 'real story' in order of translating the complexities of the realities of repression and freedom into images. In it he replaces a romantic cliché with a modern politicized take on a particularly tormented historical period, but his visual language's coding brings forth the controversy that rendered this piece of his art to obscurity. The explicit use of nudity and erotic encounters of all kinds seems to be concealing the message of aspiring political freedom from an initial and superficial glance. The use of nudity is a recurrent visual element in Jancsó's art, but, while in his earlier works it was a symbol of humiliation, now it is a sign of liberation and he goes much farther than that. The mix of both sexes in wild celebration of nakedness and sex in a state of joy and ecstasy is an expression of rebellion and free will. This is in contrast with the attitudes of those in power, who seem to want to cover every inch of flesh with as many layers as possible and every act of life with prude social contacts ('In MY family, we do not have sex!'). This revolution replaces the unnatural uniforms of the army and clergy with natural uniformity of the nakedness of all-beautiful young bodies, and the highly coded social behavior with spontaneous sexuality. This alone indeed, often places the unprepared spectator at certain unease.

Due to contractual terms, Jancsó enjoyed less than usual artistic freedom that shows up as discontinuity with both, his previous and later works when it comes to editing, using of music and photography. Despite these minor artistic flaws, the film remains a powerful work, reflecting on youth movements that attempted revolutions in the 60s and 70s' Western World, bearing signs of knowing what they did not want-but being not sure of what to replace them with. Jancsó proves himself to be a lucid analyst not only of history but also of modern society. The young in this film are mistaken by hoping to make their voices heard, as silence and conformance with the social order is to be maintained by those in power - regardless the arbitrary nature of this order. One can argue that the mock-rituals of the Crown Prince are as legitimate as the Imperial etiquette, but a revolution without proper preparation is doomed to failure.

In summary, 'Vizi privati, pubbliche virtú' is a sorrowful meditation on the limits of a revolution that failed to come to life, not a pretentious porno flick - as an unperceptive observant would judge it to be. The question is ours now to answer: 'Is our society -and we ourselves- are so far removed from the puritanical world of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef and his obsessively clean image? '

This is filmed beautifully by Miklos Jansko ,who is always politically astute, as well as poetically pleasing. The film depicts an anarchistic 'revolution of everyday life' which contrasts with Marxist Lenisist militarist seizure of power. His poetic portrait is similari to much of Pier Pailo Pasolini's work but is less pessimistic.Like Derek Jarman's 'Jubilee ' 1977 , it shows anarchistic youth rebellion against prevailing power structures.Pasolini's 'Salo ' 1975 shows even more depressingly power reproducing itself due to a lack of an alternative ideology.Whilst fascists secretly admire their masters; anarchists recognize none. Other reviewers explain the historical political context better than I would have.

I saw this film at Essex University in 1977 and have never had the chance to see it since.Where could I see this again?

I can't forget such an graceful and sad movie. It's as beautiful as moving folk dancing songs. Real masterpiece! Slow path, poetic, erotic and hard to understand completely unless we are well-known about history of that event and already get used to art flims. You won't really satisfied and might feel bored if you are finding a sexual porn film. It should not be shown on Playboy channel. What a shame! I feel sorry for that great Central European director.

This is a brilliant, phantasmagorical film which offers a good start for the discussion of how to mix sexuality and innocence. Lots of nudity makes it pleasant on the eye; but it's also got an interesting twist on an intriguing piece of historical mystery. Not much seen since the 70s (when I saw it); but due a revival.

Watching the rather splendid and outrageous Austrian TV series Freud on Netflix prompted us to give this a watch. The TV series has Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria as a key side character up to some very strange antics leading up to the Maylerling incident and this Miklos Jancso extravaganza is no less out of the ordinary. I knew Jancso as a great 60s director of the likes of The Round Up and The Red and the White considering that this more sensational colour film was somehow unworthy. Different it is and despite consisting of one massive and prolonged and explicit orgy for a chunk of its length still most recognisable as a wonderfully choreographed and photographed work of Miklos Jancso. The trials and tribulations of the state are far from the young man's mind as he encourages total abandon in his friends and thereby creating the most stunning and beautifully parade of young flesh. There is a method in Jancso's seeming madness as he presents the youth of the day rejecting so spectacularly the order of the day with all its uniformed pomposity. But the director is speaking also of the 70s and surely is asking just where was all this revolution intended to lead? Was there a positive end game to Paris '68, the Prague Spring or were we all just pi**ing in the wind - or a lady's hat, as here?

This god arwful film played on the Playboy channel and I don't know why for it's terrible to watch. The film has a woman with a penis (this film must have gotten a "X" rating in 1975), a male law officer getting raped by two guys, and other crazy stuff. Obnoxious and boring at the same time as two idiot sing "baba Blacksheep". If this film called erotic in Playboy Channel's programing director, then no wonder some bigshot on the channel told them to stop playing old films and make original films from now on.