This Greek film was obviously marketed as a piece of soft-core porn about nubile young Greeks getting it off when, in fact, it's a reasonably serious, and incredibly boring, account of ancient Greek shepherds struggling to survive or at least cope with a lack of water, which may or may not be symbolic.The "Young Aphrodites" of the title are rather comely maidens and certainly not the type to entice you into the porn cinemas of Soho or should that be downtown Athens and yet I am sure this is just the kind of 'art-house' movie that once upon a time was squarely aimed at what was affectionately known as 'the dirty mac brigade', at least here in the UK, (and if that were the case, they would have been severely disappointed).There isn't much of a plot, (there isn't much of anything really), but at least it nicely shot in black and white and has an easy-on-the-ear score by Yannis Markopoulous. Still, I can't imagine when this was being made who the producers imagined their intended audience might be or that it won the Best Director prize at the Berlin Film Festival. I gave up before the end.

First, a confession - I was ready to like this film even before I saw it, because it was based on a classical text set in Greece ("Chloe and Dafnis", an early romance). What I wasn't ready for was the frank exploration of attraction, sex and perceived self-worth that this film offers. Imagine if someone was able to capture the essence of the mating ritual, stripped of nearly all its cultural clutter. That is what this film does, and in hauntingly beautiful tableaux vivants.What happens in the film? Well, the film opens in the distant past, as group of shepherds arrive at a new location to water their animals. On arrival, a young boy finds a local girl fishing and begins a tentative courtship. At the same time, an older shepherd does the same with a bird-catcher. But who is falling into whose nets? As we watch both couples, a series of themes are presented. Why are we aggressive in love? What do we understand of the engines of attraction? Can we ever come to know one another, or are we always strangers wandering? This film, shot in the early 1960s, gives its viewers questions that are far more modern than expected, and yet as old as the subject itself. This is a love story, provided that you understand that love is an absolutely unfathomable mystery.

Okay - I'm a USAian, and not particularly ashamed of it. I like my movies with characters I can care about, a story that interests me, filmed in a visually pleasing fashion.The B&W photography was okay - some good scenery, some solid storytelling, but several shots either poorly framed, or in such close-up that it was hard to tell what was being shown - or why.The characters were, I'm afraid, little more than cardboard cutouts - the young girl who showed much skin, even more indecision about the boy who she fascinated, and a remarkable lack of background or depth. The love/lust-crazed adult shepherd and his paramour, the wife of an absent fisherman - the story they told can be seen in almost any cheap neighborhood bar almost every week - and seeing the couple in the bar will give you more insight into why they're doing this dance than this movie will.The older, bullying boy remained a cipher. The crutch-using leader, the other shepherds, the rest of the fisher-folk village - either didn't get enough screen time to fill out their characters, or too much screen time for the set-dressing they were. The primitive instruments and folk dances were interesting, but took away from the story rather than adding to it - the right television commercials would have fit in better with the story.A side note to European filmmakers - symbology is representative. Symbols can be a marvelous way to enhance storytelling, but they are never, in themselves, the story.I'll give it a 4 for visual interest and the bit of dramatic tension that was achieved, and remain mystified as to why anyone would consider this masterful film-making. I guess I'm just a Philistine.

Like the other reviewers above, I too was captivated by this movie upon it's initial (and seemingly short-lived) theatrical release. It must have been about 1968 or 1969 when I saw it at one of those 'arty' type cinemas in Sydney, and I am almost certain that that copy was overdubbed in English, which made it a lot more watchable, even if it did upset the lip-synch! I was enthralled from the very first frames, and all I can do is agree with an earlier reviewer who noted that he/she did not want it to end, and another reviewer who stated that it was like a beautiful dream that one wishes that one could have every night.Sure, there are a few glitches in the continuity, and many more in the reasoning behind the screenplay (?) but the whole beauty of this little gem of a film is in the IMAGERY, supported mostly by the minimal dialogue, and gorgeous musical score. You can actually believe that you are looking through a time-window into an ancient coming together of opposing faiths and forces.I have a subtitled copy on VHS, which was cross-recorded many years ago from my original copy on Beta (before the Beta died), but it was originally recorded from our SBS channel (still in its formative years in the early 1980's) and the quality leaves something to be desired. (Ghosting of the images, which leaves some scenes difficult to watch, and several picture rolls, due to the advancing age of the tape.) Even so though, it is still a powerful piece of work, and I would dearly love to have a crisp, clear copy on DVD.As none seems forthcoming, I shall have to rely on the annual playing of my copy on VHS, and simply remember how achingly beautiful it was on the big screen, all those years ago..........