The seventeen year-old outcast Anita (Christina Lindberg) has neither a good relationship with her parents and sister nor has friends. She is a nymphomaniac and has intercourse and BJ with most of the men in her little town regardless of their ages. When she meets the psychology student Erik (Stellan Skarsgård), he brings her to live with his friends that are artists and she discloses her sexual experiences to him. Further, Erik discuss her problem with his adviser, he also realizes that he has fallen in love with her. But Anita needs an orgasm to cure first before staying with Erik."Anita" (1973) is a Sweden-French movie of exploitation about a seventeen year-old nymphomaniac forty years before the hype in the Lars von Trier's "Nymphomaniac". The story lines are the same, but the Danish director has detailed the plot along four hours running time. Stellan Skarsgård works in both movies listening to the nymphomaniac. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): Not Available.

This is a good solid well made film and not at all like I expected. Indeed although there is much sexual activity depicted, we see nothing like as much of Christina Lindberg as we do in say, Exposed. Because the film is serious we do not get an exploitative showing of the leading lady's numerous liaisons and due to the constant reminding that these are desperate encounters of an unhappy young girl, we find ourselves in a rather uncomfortable position for most of the time. There are moments, nevertheless! For those that reckon Lindberg cannot act, she certainly does well enough here in many a varied situation, be it talking with her psychiatrist chum, trying to relate to her parents, or sucking some old man's d***. Stellan Skarsgard, who plays the said psychiatrist, and very convincingly too, he had a most illustrious career ahead of him and is still very much working today, having appeared and even sung in Mamma Mia! Worth seeing but it is rather downbeat a lot of the time.

The English title of this film is Anita (Swedish Nymphet). At the time of release of this film, in the United States, this was regarded as a duplicate title; by our standards at that time all Swedish girls were considered nymphomaniacs! That was NOT right for us to do so; I am the first to admit that. Rather it reflects the morality, or perceived morality, of that era. In some locations of the US a nymphomaniac was a woman who had sex twice a night with her husband; except perhaps for her honeymoon when such "immoral" behavior was tolerated. The Swedish women were much more advanced in human sexuality; it was the United States that had to catch up in this field. This movie is interesting in that it does portray a true Swedish nymphomaniac in a realistic fashion.The movie explains in some detail that nymphomania is actually a comparatively rare condition; the psychology student mentions that nymphomania is improperly used to describe the activities of a woman who is simply enjoying a healthy sex life (when I was growing up the healthy sex life of a woman was considered to be having sex only when her husband was extremely desperate). Rather, nymphomania is a reflection of a very deep seated mental disorder. The question is whether or not Anita can be cured. Not deprived of all sexual desire but having the sexual desire that is properly balanced with L-O-V-E! The uncut movie was banned in the United Sates for some time. Though you could show breasts and butts by 1974 one found it quite difficult to legally show a woman's pubic area-this being about the same time that Larry Flynt was going to prison for doing just that. The uncut version of this film shows a little more of that area than what was allowed in the U.S. then. Christina Lindberg did a remarkable acting job in the private nude and sexual scenes. Today this film would be regarded as more or less normal fare; back then it was considered pornographic to a tremendous degree. Hence my high regards for her.

The best thing about "Anita" is that is supposed to work within the sexploitation genre, and it is actually a subtle and insightful social critique -well, at least in the first sixty minutes. To someone who's looking for crude, hardcore sex scenes (myself included), this movie is may be disappointing, but for a feminist researcher the movie's angle points out and contextualizes patriarchy and domination as main causes of social "ilness." Just watch the perspective of the movie, and you'll see a "lylja-for-ever" for the seventies.In addition, the movie suggests an interesting development of the relationship between the psychology student/psychoanalyst/'doctor' and his patient Anita. At one point, you can see the parallel between the authoritarian/ disengaged father and the psychoanalyst, and both of them are exercising power over the nymphomaniac character. However, Hendrix becomes involved in the story (he hangs on the door where the full human contact-I mean the orgasm- takes place), and we get a sweaty non-convincing highly idealized ending.I would watch this movie again to see: 1. the construction of anita's character as an outcast 2. the whole symbolism behind the young student's actions: feeding her, putting the band aides on, offering her a community where she is actually defended 3. the dysfunctional family 4. the sad scenes of sex that reminds me how the porn industry is using my fantasies. but hey, I kinda like this, though...