Plastic Jesus (1971)

is the new movie of the week: imdb

just a heads up, I haven't actually finished this thing yet, just made it through the first half...
but I’ll get to the end this week, it’s pretty short. No need to go hunting for it because it's right here:
1 + 2 (looks like you need to make a profile for the second part, I guess)

so my intro is probably going to be halfway there too, but we're just starting to watch...
🙂



The main guy is Tom. He's from New York, and he takes us through the streets of Washington, D.C., where he's trying to shoot... some kind of project. Tom is a filmmaker, and he likes photography too. He steals books because he loves reading. Tom likes both women and men. He loves his body and isn't shy about showing it off, right at the start. Tom is sensitive, hates authority, religion, and all those different ideologies, but he's a likable, smart provocateur. The story he tells feels pretty close to what we're dealing with today. It might not be a masterpiece or anything, but it seems thoughtful and fun enough.

Besides following Tom's life stories—which is probably semi-autobiographical—the movie includes documentary shots and a bunch of archival footage. From what I read, this is the only film from the old Yugoslavia era that actually landed the director in prison. It was directed by Lazar Stojanović as a thesis project at the Academy in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, when he defended it, the committee gave him the highest grade possible. The whole idea was supposedly just to capture a hippie-style story about life and love. Apparently, nobody suspected the script had an agenda back then, but now everyone is washing their hands of it—the mentors, the professors, the whole committee...

So why was this dark film such a problem and why did they bury it? Well, first, it caused a stir because of the explicit sexual content. Not the stuff people usually overlook, but scenes where our friend Tom walks completely naked (and innocent!) through Washington, D.C., does a little prostitution, kisses a man, and apparently masturbates to minors (I didn't see that part, I'm guessing it's in the second half based on what I read). But the real headache came from the other kind of prostitution and pornography—the political kind. It criticized the repression of the time and mocked totalitarianism, because sequences of Hitler's Nazi propaganda were clearly being compared to the imagery used by Tito, the communists, and various other factions.



more info is: here

and some other sources: + + +

Did I read this review correctly? If he was actually molesting minors, then we aren't talking about art anymore—we're talking about a felony. Thank God this maniac ended up behind bars.

As for his supposed "artistry" and "genius," it’s just a bunch of washed-up, pretentious elites putting a mentally unstable predator on a pedestal. What a joke. Bravo to him, I guess, for wandering around cities naked. Truly a massive talent.

You’re reading it fine. 😁

But look, this isn't some documentary.
I guess thinking is a crime now?

I wouldn't sit through this even if they were paying me

Lisa Davis46 said:You’re reading it fine. 😁

But look, this isn't some documentary.
I guess thinking is a crime now?

It explicitly states it's both autobiographical and documentary style.

All we can do is hope that part isn't actually documentary, but you'd have to ask that lunatic.

No, thinking isn't a crime.

Lawrence Booth2

Agreed.

I only skimmed through the first part of the link from the original post...

If the second half turns out to be another'compilation of music videos themed around WW2' (which I actually found somewhat tolerable), then I won't just 'skim' through it this time...

But if it isn't, then I won't even bother opening the link (the first part includes several non-musical scenes I stumbled upon while skimming).

I don't know, I'll probably get back to you once I've had a look...
🙂

and it looks like some of those music and history clips
actually have a few segments that ended up stuck in the bunker:



and just a quick reminder here—we're looking at a senior thesis.

Lisa Davis46 said:I don't know, I'll probably get back to you once I've had a look...
🙂

and it looks like some of those music and history clips
actually have a few segments that ended up stuck in the bunker:

and just a quick reminder here—we're looking at a senior thesis.

It’s pretty clear he didn't leave much of an impression if this is his one and only shot at it. ☕
I think I'll try to sit down and actually watch it today...

Watched this a long time ago—honestly, one of the weaker black-and-white flicks out there. Still, there are two scenes worth checking out:

First, you've got archival footage from the old regime's assembly featuring Stepinac. Then it cuts to Tom, who basically remarks that these clips will be worth millions someday.

The second starts with documentary footage of Tito’s speech, followed by a close-up of Tom just smirking sarcastically at the camera. Clearly, the censors weren't laughing. 😁🙄

Joseph Edwards4 said:Did I read this review correctly? If he was actually molesting minors, then we aren't talking about art anymore—we're talking about a felony. Thank God this maniac ended up behind bars.

As for his supposed "artistry" and "genius," it’s just a bunch of washed-up, pretentious elites putting a mentally unstable predator on a pedestal. What a joke. Bravo to him, I guess, for wandering around cities naked. Truly a massive talent.

What an absolute clown you are...🤣
Since sex with minors isn't even a crime under current laws, why would masturbation be any different?😒

bluecyclist64 said:What an absolute clown you are...🤣
Since sex with minors isn't even a crime under current laws, why would masturbation be any different?😒

You write absolute nonsense like this and then have the nerve to call other people clowns.

The style really reminds me of Godard... especially with that way of stitching scenes together, and even the framing of the shots (that non-documentary/fiction part featuring Tom Gotovac). There’s also something about the dialogue—this casual vibe in those provocative lines that just lays bare what the director is thinking.

By layering archival footage of life under totalitarian regimes (and WW2 troops), they’ve created this really cool contrast with the scenes involving Tom Gotovac.

And honestly, I don't get why it was so controversial that the guy actually ended up in jail. I mean, I get it. But regardless, the movie is actually pretty benign, which matches what the Academy commission originally thought.

It’s experimental, and those "sexually explicit scenes" aren't even meant to be provocative in that sense... it isn't some weird thing about minors; it’s more like someone playing softcore clips on a projector in front of a kid, who isn't even paying attention, until the kid's mother walks in and starts lecturing them about letting him watch stuff like that. 😁.

All in all, it’s an interesting watch... feels more like a time capsule of an era, especially when you factor in all the drama surrounding the film itself.

If you try to watch this as just some standard motion picture, it makes absolutely zero sense; everything feels totally incoherent and disjointed. You can barely even track the main plotline through all the other stylistic noise... The only redeeming quality here has to be Tom Gotovac's performance, because he actually carries himself with such a natural presence.
As an experimental art installation, though, it’s actually quite compelling, since most of the scenes managed to provoke some kind of visceral reaction. That said, leaning on the whole "patriots vs. rebels" trope—essentially just fishing for cheap emotional payoffs—isn't exactly groundbreaking territory...

When you step back and look at the big picture, it's an interesting piece, despite its glaring flaws.

Lisa Davis46 said:is the new movie of the week: imdb

just a heads up, I haven't actually finished this thing yet, just made it through the first half...
but I’ll get to the end this week, it’s pretty short. No need to go hunting for it because it's right here:
1 + 2 (looks like you need to make a profile for the second part, I guess)

so my intro is probably going to be halfway there too, but we're just starting to watch...
🙂

The main guy is Tom. He's from New York, and he takes us through the streets of Washington, D.C., where he's trying to shoot... some kind of project. Tom is a filmmaker, and he likes photography too. He steals books because he loves reading. Tom likes both women and men. He loves his body and isn't shy about showing it off, right at the start. Tom is sensitive, hates authority, religion, and all those different ideologies, but he's a likable, smart provocateur. The story he tells feels pretty close to what we're dealing with today. It might not be a masterpiece or anything, but it seems thoughtful and fun enough.

Besides following Tom's life stories—which is probably semi-autobiographical—the movie includes documentary shots and a bunch of archival footage. From what I read, this is the only film from the old Yugoslavia era that actually landed the director in prison. It was directed by Lazar Stojanović as a thesis project at the Academy in Washington, D.C. Interestingly, when he defended it, the committee gave him the highest grade possible. The whole idea was supposedly just to capture a hippie-style story about life and love. Apparently, nobody suspected the script had an agenda back then, but now everyone is washing their hands of it—the mentors, the professors, the whole committee...

So why was this dark film such a problem and why did they bury it? Well, first, it caused a stir because of the explicit sexual content. Not the stuff people usually overlook, but scenes where our friend Tom walks completely naked (and innocent!) through Washington, D.C., does a little prostitution, kisses a man, and apparently masturbates to minors (I didn't see that part, I'm guessing it's in the second half based on what I read). But the real headache came from the other kind of prostitution and pornography—the political kind. It criticized the repression of the time and mocked totalitarianism, because sequences of Hitler's Nazi propaganda were clearly being compared to the imagery used by Tito, the communists, and various other factions.

starring: Tom Gotovac, in New York


director: Lazar Stojanović

more info is: here

and some other sources: + + +

I watched the remastered version and that definitely wasn't in there.

Jessica Morris6 said:If you try to watch this as just some standard motion picture, it makes absolutely zero sense; everything feels totally incoherent and disjointed. You can barely even track the main plotline through all the other stylistic noise... The only redeeming quality here has to be Tom Gotovac's performance, because he actually carries himself with such a natural presence.
As an experimental art installation, though, it’s actually quite compelling, since most of the scenes managed to provoke some kind of visceral reaction. That said, leaning on the whole "patriots vs. rebels" trope—essentially just fishing for cheap emotional payoffs—isn't exactly groundbreaking territory...

When you step back and look at the big picture, it's an interesting piece, despite its glaring flaws.

I watched the remastered version and that definitely wasn't in there.

Maybe that's because that whole storyline is actually based on true events! Back then, Tom actually moved to Washington, D.C. to study film directing, so his life there probably looked pretty much like that... But, since they labeled it autobiographical, it might actually be based on Stojanović, which would mean that specific part of the movie is scripted after all. Still, I totally agree, Tom just feels so real in it...

Even so, you have to admit that leaning into those old clashes between factions isn't exactly groundbreaking... it's kind of cheap emotional bait.

The real issue is that back then, any movie touching on WW2 had to basically worship Tito and Yugoslavia. But here? They actually compared the regime to the fascists and Nazis... Talk about a gutsy move! It ended up causing a massive scandal, landing Stojanović in jail, giving the Academy in Washington, D.C. huge headaches, and even keeping Tom Gotovac from graduating for a while... crazy stuff...

Amanda Robinson4 said:Maybe that's because that whole storyline is actually based on true events! Back then, Tom actually moved to Washington, D.C. to study film directing, so his life there probably looked pretty much like that... But, since they labeled it autobiographical, it might actually be based on Stojanović, which would mean that specific part of the movie is scripted after all. Still, I totally agree, Tom just feels so real in it...

Even so, you have to admit that leaning into those old clashes between factions isn't exactly groundbreaking... it's kind of cheap emotional bait.

The real issue is that back then, any movie touching on WW2 had to basically worship Tito and Yugoslavia. But here? They actually compared the regime to the fascists and Nazis... Talk about a gutsy move! It ended up causing a massive scandal, landing Stojanović in jail, giving the Academy in Washington, D.C. huge headaches, and even keeping Tom Gotovac from graduating for a while... crazy stuff...

Looking back at it now, what was actually wrong with the "regime" suppressing stuff like this?

Jessica Morris6 said:If you try to watch this as just some standard motion picture, it makes absolutely zero sense; everything feels totally incoherent and disjointed. You can barely even track the main plotline through all the other stylistic noise... The only redeeming quality here has to be Tom Gotovac's performance, because he actually carries himself with such a natural presence.
As an experimental art installation, though, it’s actually quite compelling, since most of the scenes managed to provoke some kind of visceral reaction. That said, leaning on the whole "patriots vs. rebels" trope—essentially just fishing for cheap emotional payoffs—isn't exactly groundbreaking territory...

When you step back and look at the big picture, it's an interesting piece, despite its glaring flaws.

I watched the remastered version and that definitely wasn't in there.

It’s pretty funny how you guys all jumped down my throat over one single point that I literally mentioned in the intro wasn't even verified info. But hey, at least the thread is active now. 😁

And thanks, Amanda Robinson4, for clearing up that mystery! I haven't seen the second half yet—hopefully tonight if I can actually wrap up everything else I have to do.

Jessica Morris6 said:It’s pretty clear he didn't leave much of an impression if this is his one and only shot at it. ☕
I think I'll try to sit down and actually watch it today...

Amanda Robinson4 said:The style really reminds me of Godard... especially with that way of stitching scenes together, and even the framing of the shots (that non-documentary/fiction part featuring Tom Gotovac). There’s also something about the dialogue—this casual vibe in those provocative lines that just lays bare what the director is thinking.

By layering archival footage of life under totalitarian regimes (and WW2 troops), they’ve created this really cool contrast with the scenes involving Tom Gotovac.

And honestly, I don't get why it was so controversial that the guy actually ended up in jail. I mean, I get it. But regardless, the movie is actually pretty benign, which matches what the Academy commission originally thought.

It’s experimental, and those "sexually explicit scenes" aren't even meant to be provocative in that sense... it isn't some weird thing about minors; it’s more like someone playing softcore clips on a projector in front of a kid, who isn't even paying attention, until the kid's mother walks in and starts lecturing them about letting him watch stuff like that. 😁.

All in all, it’s an interesting watch... feels more like a time capsule of an era, especially when you factor in all the drama surrounding the film itself.

Yeah, that's actually the most problematic part of this whole thing for me. And what Amanda Robinson4 mentioned in her last post too. The reality is, we're talking about a young guy who made this as his final project at the Academy, under actual mentorship. He presented it to a committee that gave him an A—the highest grade possible. It makes you wonder: why did nobody stand by him or defend the work later? Does the student just shoulder all the blame alone? At our university, they'll fail people during their final defense if a project doesn't meet every single requirement (or people just bail before the presentation). If I've got my facts straight, the guy ended up in prison twice—first back in '73 right after being convicted, and then again in the '90s after the film was cleared.

I guess it's pretty questionable whether he ever had a real shot at making anything else, or even staying in the film industry after all that... though he clearly had potential. I don't know if there's more info out there; I barely found this, from the intro.

Jessica Morris6 said:If you try to watch this as just some standard motion picture, it makes absolutely zero sense; everything feels totally incoherent and disjointed. You can barely even track the main plotline through all the other stylistic noise... The only redeeming quality here has to be Tom Gotovac's performance, because he actually carries himself with such a natural presence.
As an experimental art installation, though, it’s actually quite compelling, since most of the scenes managed to provoke some kind of visceral reaction. That said, leaning on the whole "patriots vs. rebels" trope—essentially just fishing for cheap emotional payoffs—isn't exactly groundbreaking territory...

When you step back and look at the big picture, it's an interesting piece, despite its glaring flaws.

I watched the remastered version and that definitely wasn't in there.

I’m really glad you pointed that out. That's honestly how I saw him, too. He was just... effortless.

Jack Cook7 said:Looking back at it now, what was actually wrong with the "regime" suppressing stuff like this?

Well, if you look at all the other acclaimed hits from that era, they were all basically just pieces of national propaganda... they had to be if they were hitting those specific themes, but this one? This one took a different path.

Actually, the Black Wave had plenty of those—films tackling questionable topics for the government. That same year, Dušan Makavejev released misterija organizam, which is honestly pretty similar to plastičan Isus in many ways... it's actually why Makavejev was forced to leave the US to keep making movies.

Now, I'm not trying to critique the movie itself—some people will love it, some won't, and that's totally fair! It’s weird, experimental, and definitely not for the masses... but it served as proof that there was a more "democratic" side out there that just wasn't allowed to speak up. Not everyone wanted to swallow the official propaganda that was screaming from every news outlet and movie screen, especially when it was clearly masking lies, corruption, and hypocrisy.

Lisa Davis46 said:It’s pretty funny how you guys all jumped down my throat over one single point that I literally mentioned in the intro wasn't even verified info. But hey, at least the thread is active now. 😁

And thanks, Amanda Robinson4, for clearing up that mystery! I haven't seen the second half yet—hopefully tonight if I can actually wrap up everything else I have to do.

Yeah, that's actually the most problematic part of this whole thing for me. And what Amanda Robinson4 mentioned in her last post too. The reality is, we're talking about a young guy who made this as his final project at the Academy, under actual mentorship. He presented it to a committee that gave him an A—the highest grade possible. It makes you wonder: why did nobody stand by him or defend the work later? Does the student just shoulder all the blame alone? At our university, they'll fail people during their final defense if a project doesn't meet every single requirement (or people just bail before the presentation). If I've got my facts straight, the guy ended up in prison twice—first back in '73 right after being convicted, and then again in the '90s after the film was cleared.

I guess it's pretty questionable whether he ever had a real shot at making anything else, or even staying in the film industry after all that... though he clearly had potential. I don't know if there's more info out there; I barely found this, from the intro.

I’m really glad you pointed that out. That's honestly how I saw him, too. He was just... effortless.

Yeah, see how easily people get triggered? If this were just a clickbait headline, it would say, "Controversial! You won't believe what Tom Gotovac did in front of minors!" 😁 Everyone would be rushing to watch the film in a heartbeat, guaranteed! ☕

Lisa Davis46 said:It’s pretty funny how you guys all jumped down my throat over one single point that I literally mentioned in the intro wasn't even verified info. But hey, at least the thread is active now. 😁

And thanks, Amanda Robinson4, for clearing up that mystery! I haven't seen the second half yet—hopefully tonight if I can actually wrap up everything else I have to do.

Yeah, that's actually the most problematic part of this whole thing for me. And what Amanda Robinson4 mentioned in her last post too. The reality is, we're talking about a young guy who made this as his final project at the Academy, under actual mentorship. He presented it to a committee that gave him an A—the highest grade possible. It makes you wonder: why did nobody stand by him or defend the work later? Does the student just shoulder all the blame alone? At our university, they'll fail people during their final defense if a project doesn't meet every single requirement (or people just bail before the presentation). If I've got my facts straight, the guy ended up in prison twice—first back in '73 right after being convicted, and then again in the '90s after the film was cleared.

I guess it's pretty questionable whether he ever had a real shot at making anything else, or even staying in the film industry after all that... though he clearly had potential. I don't know if there's more info out there; I barely found this, from the intro.

I’m really glad you pointed that out. That's honestly how I saw him, too. He was just... effortless.

And then you have others who were persecuted but managed to survive. Polanski is still out there working, and Zulavski fled Poland, though frankly, it might have been better if he hadn't made it, considering I was forced to sit through that Na srebrn globus mess of his...

Censorship was pretty much the standard across all those old socialist countries, but Stojanović was really the only one here who actually ended up behind bars because of a movie. (I'm not sure if there were similar stories elsewhere, but man, so many directors had to constantly fight against the censors)

There’s even this great little story about Kieslowski... He originally shot a documentary about how bad things were for the workers, but they banned it immediately. So, what does he do? He writes a scripted feature film covering the exact same themes, and suddenly, they let it through! That was his big "aha!" moment—learning how to sidestep the censors to tell the actual story he wanted to tell in the first place...

It’s not quite that simple...

I just got some verified info from a source I trust more than I should. 🙂
(I'll drop it in now.)

My take? Stojanović was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He seems like a sensitive, level-headed guy, and he’s been an anti-war activist his whole life.
Plus, other filmmakers from that era were shooting way more provocative stuff...
without ending up behind bars.

But here's what I was told regarding why he was charged, convicted, and why nobody from the Academy could (or would dare to) back that film... it comes down to the missing parts after the bunker shot (check the censorship frame in the post above):

The issue was deeply personal. He used footage from Ljubiša Ristić's wedding—who eventually "evolved" into a JUL-ovac, Mira Marković, the wife of Slobodan Milošević—where his own parents, who were decorated veterans, were also present. He wove them into a narrative that was pretty damn provocative for the ruling party, and—boom—prison. If I remember correctly, Pavle Levi wrote about him.

I actually just got my hands on Levi's book, 'The Collapse of Yugoslavia in Film',
which covers the movie extensively, but I'll just pull this specific part: