GamerTab
That was an excellent one.
UnowPriceless
hyped garbage
TheLittleSongbird
Ken Russell can go either way for me, but Mahler I find absolutely fascinating and one of his better films. There are a couple of touches that are perhaps excessively weird and hard to swallow or completely believe like Cosima Wagner as a dominatrix and Mahler biting into a pig snout. Even with those touches though, Mahler is actually in a way one of Russell's more restrained efforts and all the better for it. The film is beautifully shot, the period lovingly evoked and the locations stunning to look at. The music is phenomenal, and is utilised very well here. The effective being that of Kindertotenlieder in the wonderful sequence where Alma is searching for her children. Russell directs with a restrained but unmistakable style and the film is finely scripted by him even if it is purposefully talky. The story unfolds slowly, but is continually riveting. Robert Powell not only bears some semblance to Mahler but also gives a performance of great depth and subtlety. Georgina Hale gives him excellent support as Alma, and it was interesting to see a portrayal of Hugo Wolf, played ably here by David Collings. Overall, a fascinating film whether you're a classical music fan, a newcomer to the style or not, though it is one of those movies that I don't see everybody being totally enamoured with. 9/10 Bethany Cox
looneyfarm
Mahler is an interesting case. Whereas Ken Russell's films are either just over the top (his theatrical films), or maybe even too subtle (his television work), Mahler is both. Its closest companion may be always the simple but exquisite Song of Summer, but there is that usual kitsch and excess you can find without a magnifier from Lisztomania and other Russell classics.What I'm trying to say is that if you find Russell's television work too tame, and The Devils and Tommy are just too much, Mahler might be your film. It's not Russell's best, but in this film he found a balance which is rare to him. It may be a slow and long film, but in the end game is wonderfully rich and profound in explaining the essence of artistry and creativity. And much like Michael Powell did to ballet dance in The Red Shoes, Russell doesn't just explain his subject matter in Mahler: he brings it alive. It's like the romantic Gustav Mahler himself made this film.And, of course, there is the music! Much recommended to everybody.
enthusiast
Definitely a good film about the composer; it portrays him better than "Bride of the Wind" did (that movie showed only the older Mahler as he was not the central feature). Alma is portrayed more realistically in this movie. Much has been made about the conversion to Christianity and though this segment of the film is quite controversial in the U.S. it should be noted that in the German speaking areas of Europe at that time Christianity was not nearly as benevolent towards people of the Jewish faith as it is in the U.S. (or Lithuania) today. Realize that Lithuania is a Catholic country and we lost our Jews in the Great Patriotic War due to the Germans coming through here so we know. Russell was trying to show that Mahler had to take a heck of a leap, psychologically, to go from being a Jew to becoming a Christian.Enough of politics. This film has much more of his music than "Bride of the Wind" and that is certainly enjoyable. VHS does not give adequate quality of sound reproduction for the music so I highly recommend DVD with good stereo speakers for viewing this film. His work was incredible and he was definitely the greatest German composer after Beethoven. One item of note: Most of this film seems to take place at Mahler's summer residence- where he composed most of his music. Yet, during most of the year(s) he was in Vienna conducting. Was Mahler unfaithful to Alma in Vienna? Well, when you consider the conductor of any great philharmonic was then as popular to women as hard rock singers are now; Let's just say that he was probably not as unfaithful to Alma as he could have been.
gratian-2
As with so many of Ken Russell's films, this work probes, again, the nature of artistic genius, the mores of artists during the last 150 years and, especially, the proximity of this form of genius to psycho-pathology. During this period-- 1968 to 1980-- the period of Russell's greatest popularity, infamy and exposure coincided with a formative period of my life. He was ' a god of my adolescence.' By this I mean to say that my critical 'objectivity' is somewhat blurred when it comes to assessing the films of this period. For I, too am a music lover.
