I lived in Vienna for four years so I was really excited to see this movie. My attention was grabbed by the DVDs cover art which is a repackaging of The Kiss by Gustav Klimt. The late 1800s until World War II was a very unique time in the fields of art, psychology, music, architecture/design and literature that is very rarely touched upon nowadays. So I had high hopes. But I was disappointed in this movie and I felt it could have been in a much more interesting way. The actors were OK I guess. I don't think they had much in the dialogue department to work with. The points that would have made this much more interesting...the art, music and literary aspects...were just touched upon. But that said, it was billed as a story about one woman's life during this period and how she was a muse to some of the now famous men of the era. Actually I came away being much less sympathetic to this woman than I was before I saw the film. She seemed less of a muse than a woman who used famous men for her own ends. I find it unusual that out of all of Vienna, she managed only to make well-known men her lovers. Men such as Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kolkoschka, Water Gropius, Gustav Mahler and on and on. It really did no favors to this woman's reputation and I viewed her as kind of a user and a whiner. Yes she did not have a lot of freedom but it was the very early 1900s, neither did any other woman. She seemed to have the daring to jump from man to man in the days when this was simply not done in polite society. Yet she did not seem to have the courage to try to make it on her own in the field of music. If she was adventurous enough to throw caution to the wind and live such a bohemian lifestyle, I do not know why she would then have cause to complain about being stifled when she knew full well what marriage in that time entailed. How about having the courage to life your own life and pursue your own dreams in the field of music. Rather than depending on some man to fulfill your dreams then complaining when they are not. So I just found the storyline became very uninteresting very quickly and the other points such as the arts & culture of the time would have added much more interest to the film. But were just glossed over in the end.
Add a Review
-
woodkmw5 March 2007
-
Tireless13 April 2001This Biopic is the story of one of history's great professional muses, Alma Mahler. While the film recounts her marriages and dalliances with some of Europe's most talented artists (Gustav Mahler, Walter Gropius, Oskar Kokoschka, Franz Werfel, Gustav Klimt, etc) it tries to also document the struggles she faced trying to be her own woman. She is portrayed as a proto-feminist heroine, when another criticism might be that she was the ultimate anti-feminist relying on the men in her life to create a legacy instead of creating one herself.
What ever your take on Alma's life, this is a beautifully made romance. The film aims to recreate the bohemian life of fin de siècle Vienna. It succeeds in being a pretty period period piece and unabashedly racy.
While the film even draws in some unexpected depth be giving us insight into the anti-semitism Gustav Mahler faced, it remains a largely shallow effort. The fault lies partly in mediocre scripting, and partly in a less than stellar portrayal of Alma Mahler. Sarah Wynter adds no depth to the central character, portraying her largely as an icy and petulant child all her life.
As one of the most fascinating women of the first half of Europe's 20th Century, the Alma Mahler must have had something that did not make it to the screen. One cannot understand why these great artists were obsessed with the the films Alma Mahler. It is really sad that in the end this is the legacy she leaves behind -
wand_elf3 August 2001I went to this movie and I didn't really hear anything about it before and didn't know what to expect from it. I didn't even know what this film was about. All of a sudden I hear a familiar trumpet and horn melody in the opening credits and I was filled with joy. For these were the notes as composed by the late great Gustav Mahler. I quickly realized that this was going to be a film about one of my favorite composers and I was totally drawn into the film. Of course, though, this film is not about Mahler, but his wife Anna. The parts that included Gustav and Anna were wonderful. There was some honest passion going on that very few films I have seen lately have exhibited. The overall communication between the two near the end of Mahler's life was very gentle, bittersweet and very believable. Gorgeous work from Wynter and Pryce together. However the film gets considerably worst with each relationship Anna has after Mahler. Everything seems forced and rushed and consequential. It almost seems that Beresford was out to make a film about Mahler and then right in the middle of production he finds out the Mahler died much earlier than an erroneous script had told him. So he decides to make a film about a confused female 'player' who only went out with successful men before having some success of her own. Oh well. Still though I had a good time with this film. I just wish this was more of a film about Gustav Mahler than it actually was.
Elendil -
realbobwarn10 November 2004I believe that this film has had very few cinema releases due to the rotten critiques it received.
I saw it at a special screening in Canberra hosted by the director (with witty description of the trials and tribulations involved in its production and non-release). I saw it as an 'OK' biopic and certainly better than so much of the characterless violent drivel served up these days (this of course dates me). I think it deserved more exposure than it got - a worthy entry in the great director's portfolio ..... Remember, the critics usually get it wrong .... and they do not pay to see the films.
Vienna is beautiful, Mahler's wife, Alma is a forgotten feminist hero whose story deserves telling. -
aussiefilmlover10 October 2005I was prepared for an awful movie judging from the reviews and waited until this was on DVD to see it. I wonder if I watched the same film as others.
Alma's reasons for cheating and having lovers were very clearly given, she was stifled in her marriage and rather than do nothing she got satisfaction when she wanted it.
rather than being some famous groupie, she was the flame and they were the moths. Had it be 100 years latter she would be the famous composer and would have been given the respect that at that time she was only given as a muse.
The actress that plays Alma starts off the film well showing some of Alma's passion and intelligence but then seems to give up acting halfway through the film at the very time when in real life Alma was coming into her full power.
Jonathan Price is a decent Mahler but the film doesn't show the passion that he had for Alma.
Vincent Perez does an excellent job although the characterization of her third husband is far removed from the reality.
The movie focus more on the narrative and the atmosphere than on the characterization of Alma who was a talented and intelligent woman who drew people to her with her beauty but also with her intelligence, wit and ability to bring out the talent in people.
I wish the film showed more how she was a huge influence on the art and culture of the time. I did love that they played parts of her leiders(poems made into songs).
This film is good stimulation for people to learn more about her and I must say the love scenes were very intense and erotic. -
nbott11 March 2002This film begins with very great promise. The opening credits are very involving. Unfortunately, the script is banal and not very engaging at all. So after the opening credits, it is all downhill. I just do not believe that the romantic liaisons of Alma Mahler were this shallow and trite. We are led to believe that Alma Mahler is nothing but an opportunistic loose woman. We are given no background to understand her actions. With the exception of her relationship with Gustav Mahler, we are not given any information so that we can understand why so many talented men were drawn to her. Perhaps a more formidable actress would have convinced us otherwise. Her relationships with most of these important historical figures are never really fleshed out so that we can become involved and feel something for these characters.
The acting by Jonathan Pryce as Mahler is good. Vincent Perez is alluring as Kokoschka. However, the weakest acting is that of Simon Verhoeven as Walter Gropius. Ms. Wynter is obviously an excellent actress but she is destroyed by this awful script and she is not that sexually alluring. The music is, of course, wonderful. It is Mahler for the most part.
I was drawn to this film because I wanted to be moved by a chapter in the life of Mahler and to perhaps experience some of the excitement of this period of creative activity in Vienna and Central Europe. The settings are enjoyable but the film is a great disappointment for anyone seeking to know more about the life of Alma Mahler. -
hughman5522 December 2010It is difficult to imagine that a movie that in any way pertains to Gustav Mahler could fall so flat. But of course this movie isn't about Gustav Mahler. You just want it to be. And you watch it hoping that it will be. It is instead about his pedestrian wife, Alma. Here are her notable achievements worthy of a movie about her life: she married Gustav Mahler. That's it. The marriage was routine. She gave up her "future" as a composer in her own right (that seems to have mostly been in her own mind) in order to be a wife and mother, resented it from time to time, had an affair, her husband (Mahler) died, she had another affair, then married for a second time, then married for a third time, then wrote a song cycle that no one performs. And that's the movie. There was nothing notable about her life. And nothing notable about this movie. Even Mahler's transcendent music doesn't get out of this mess in tact. The writing is VERY bad, and then it's just downhill from there. The scenes are constructed in the most un-imaginary way conceivable and the direction is flat, flat, flat. Bruce Beresford doesn't seem to know, or understand, or isn't interested in, anything about the films content. The actors are lost. There is an attempt to color the tone of the movie with dark lighting to convey something atmospheric, but with nothing in the soul of this film to parallel it it just comes off as muddy. Don't bother especially if you are a Mahler fan, or a movie fan.
-
pbubny-130 September 2007You'd never know from this stifling, woodenly acted, tritely written biopic what an electrifying and singular woman Alma Schindler, by all accounts, really was. As portrayed by Sara Wynter, she's got the allure of a dishrag and may as well have "Serial Victim" stamped across her forehead, her complex life story reduced to a series of oversimplified episodes (Girl Meets Artist, Artist Falls for Girl, Artist Turns Out to Be a Self-Absorbed Jerk, and Girl Meets Another Artist). Not only do you get no sense of what a great composer, architect, sculptor and writer ever saw in her, you don't get much of a sense of what she could have possibly seen in any of them. The movie makes the 22-year-old Alma look either cynically opportunistic or oblivious to find anything attractive about this movie's smug, devitalized old-fogy Gustav Mahler (who could never have written the amazing symphonies the real Mahler composed). Walter Gropius, et al. don't fare much better. Something that looks as though it was made for--and rejected by-- Lifetime Network, despite pretty cinematography, sets and costumes. As a then- member of the Gustav Mahler Society of New York, I attended a free pre-release screening in spring 2001--and still wanted my money back!
-
artzau6 January 2002I watched this bit of eye candy in the hope that the story of Alma Schindler Mahler Gropius Werfel would unfold and the world could see a portrait of a daring, talented woman who was indeed liberated in nearly every sense of the word. Mahler is one of one of my favorite composers and I became fascinated with Alma Schindler, believe it or not, from a parody sung by Tom Lehrer. However, since that time, many, many years ago, I've managed to read several excellent biographies of Mahler as well as Alma Schindler's autobiography, which leads me to comment on this film.
Sadly, this film disappoints. It is a beautiful piece of work, with darkness wrought from bright colors, ala Bergman's Cries and Whispers, and with wonderful costumes. But, as the other reviews herein note, the script is weak and Sarah Wynter's performance is spotty. Indeed, the two male stars, Jonathon Pryce as Mahler and Vincent Perez as the artist, Oskar Kokoschka outshine Wynter's tentative characterization of Alma. Perez is especially bright, exuding passion and artistic madness, as biographer's have depicted the painter, a pioneer in early 20th Century expressionism. Peter Verhoeven as Gropius and Gregor Seberg as Werfel seem to get ground up and we're left wondering why they were written into the script...in spite of the fact, each played a significant role in the life of Alma Schindler Mahler Gropius Werfel. Too bad, they are underutilized. And, to continue slamming the script, they are badly depicted. Gropius, the great architectural innovator of the Bauhaus was hardly the foppish Mama's boy shown in the film. And, the passionate, multi-talented Franz Werfel, author of Song of Berndadette and Forty Days at Musa Dagh, was hardly the clowning caricature presented in the film. Even the solid performance of Welsh veteran Jonathon Pryce is led astray. The driven, passionate and often neurotic Mahler, compulsively washing his hands 12 times a day was not the staid, stoic older man shown in this film. So, alas, the great subject matter has been neglected. What results is not-a-bad movie about a fascinating woman that with a bit more research, better script, and a different leading lady could have been excellent, really excellent film. -
The film seems to have been a history re-enactment on the life of Alma Schindler. It did not get into the details of the what, why and how of the relationships and inspirations. It basically just showed the events in her life. Maybe Sarah Wynter was not the right person for the role because she did not reveal in her role why all these men would fall for her and create greatness in her presence. Or maybe the dialog was too simplistic and things just jumped from courting to ending of the relationship without anybody knowing why it happened. Or the directing just didn't create that passion between any of the two characters for us to think that they would get together. I guess we'll never know.
-
Vincentiu19 January 2007Alma Mahler is one of impressive legends of Mitteleuropa. To describe her life is an Utopian endeavor. Her power, art of seduction, fights and ambitions, her relationship with flower of Austrian culture, the American experience and his prestige are parts of unique existence without any explanation.
In this film, Alma is only a character. Oversimplified, mosaic of clichés, image in a steamed mirror. It is only a hasty sketch, message less, artificial, in who the charm of Sarah Wynter is unique trap for spectator. It is not, at least, a cogent disappointed.
The Jonathan Pryce acting is interesting but irrelevant. The atmosphere is only illusion of a gorgeous period. And the story falls in abyss. Alma Mahler is more that a beautiful doll. She is a magnificent legend of a amber time. -
TheLittleSongbird2 February 2013Bride of the Wind could have been great, it was an interesting subject and I love music-biographical dramas when they're good. Bride of the Wind was a big disappointment. Sure, it is beautifully shot and looks gorgeous from a colour and production value perspective. The music, mostly from Mahler, is every bit as wonderful, and Jonathan Pryce and particularly Vincent Perez are very good. Unfortunately Sarah Wynter's Alma is devoid of any sensuality, nuances or life, it's a complete blank of a performance that only succeeds in making Alma shallow and thoroughly unlikeable. Simon Verhoeven suffers from being completely under-utilised and underwritten so he can't do anything with his character, who is just there with no depth and nothing to make him distinguishable. But that is the case with all the characters actually, excepting perhaps Gustav Mahler, they are written with no substance- you can safely say that they are literally sketched over- and at no point do you engage with them. The script is completely lifeless and full to the brim with stilted dialogue, while the story is not just dull but too often steps through its content so after the film ended things happen but with hardly anything explaining them. There are also some ridiculously misconceived plot-strands, the one with Alma and Oskar being the main culprit. All in all, looks beautiful with two good performances and wonderful music, but shallow and dull that makes you hate Alma intensely. 4/10 Bethany Cox
-
inframan24 May 2002A pretty but pretty dreadful movie full of nyah-ha-ha acting that trivializes some of the most brilliant people & movements in art & music of the 20th century. Walter Gropius (the giant of modern architecture & leader of the Bauhaus) suffers in particular from a particularly fatuous impersonation while Jonathan Pryce gives his usual petulantly effete performance as a very Bloomsbury Mahler. Worst of all is the actress who plays Alma. In no way does she convey the temperament of a woman of the epoch of Freud & Mahler to say nothing of someone on intimate terms with them. Lord knows what Kokoschka or Mahler or Gropius would have seen in this one.
-
trpdean27 February 2005The story of a pioneering, cold and fickle groupie, this movie is one to avoid. Vienna 1902-1919. A good setting for any movie -- it's doubtful that the moviegoer is more familiar with any other period of twentieth century (we have countless monographs, full-scale biographies, novels, histories, museum exhibitions, and concerts devoted to Schnitzler and Musil, Joseph Roth and Grillparzer, von Hoffmansthal and Mahler, Bruckner and Freud, Kokoschka and the other expressionists, Klimt and Jung and the rise of Schoenberg and Jung, Webern and Adler, -- as well as weekly publication for the last few decades of studies of the rise of political anti-semitism - Schnorer, etc.). Yet: a) the movie wastes a few hours to uninformatively tell us that Mahler was a composer and conductor (!), that Kokoschka painted and sculpted un-pretty things (!), that Gropius was an architect who speaks once in praise of form and the absence of adornment, and that Werfel liked to sing and demonstrated against the government. That's it. There really is no more insight into these people.
**** SPOILERS****
b) we see a deeply unsympathetic woman who, for no real reason we can see, has an affair with an architect the first time she's away from her children and husband Mahler (telling him - comically - that he "forced her into the man's arms"! and expressing no remorse), then informs the architect into whose arms she was "forced" that she would not stay with her husband - when Mahler is dead, she shacks up again with the architect and resumes her fornication but then decides to go after a painter. We aren't told why she loses her interest in the architect. Later, big with child with the painter who deeply loves her, she kills the child and abandons the artist as World War I begins. Why? We don't learn. She says to one that she was "suffocated". Really? We don't see it.
So, when our painter returns from the War, he sees that she's returned to being the concubine of yet another! And is pregnant again with that man's child.
Yet we never ever see what draws any of the men to her - except that she aggressively goes after them like any groupie - whether she's married or unmarried, whether they wish it or not.
This is truly an anti-feminist story about a woman who found her identity only in that of men - and frantically went from one to another, willing to be sexually used to gain proximity.
In an age when so many women made their names famous through their work (Vanessa Bell, Virginia Woolf, Edith Wharton, Katherine Mansfield, Colette, dozens of others in the arts), Alma Schindler Moll Mahler Gropius Werfel managed only to lengthen her own by lying on her back and encourage famous men to go ahead. It's hard to find this appealing. -
dvmason1 January 2004Alma Schindler was a fascinating woman, with considerable talent of her own, who served as a muse for Gustav Mahler and several other important artists in turn-of-the-19th-century Vienna. Based on this portrayal, this would be a person I would love to know!
I found this to be a wonderful, subtle, portrayal of her life and times, capturing not only her talent, but her challenges and the compromises that she made (particularly in the context of 1910 Vienna). All the leads were well chosen, particularly Schindler, Mahler, and Klimt.
I would strongly recommend this movie to anyone with an interest in the way of the artist, feminism (not overt, but much food for thought), or the artistic ferment in early 20th century Vienna. -
afterdarkpak2 August 2020The performance is nice, the plot is good , as its kinda based on true stories of artists. the movie actually tried to shows the passion n love of music , art of woman ALMA.
But in the name of love or passion,, no shame? no respect? no dignity ? no honour? means Cheating /adultery is ok when comes to love or feelings? thats crap.. and in the end , when it shows in caption.. " her daughter married 5 times" . means she also had affairs n broken marriages. the curse of adultery goes to next generation , always. -
settingson2 March 2002I went to see the L.A. premiere of this film, in which the director and screenwriter (sic) attended. While looking through the tasteful, elegant, and researched program - I couldn't wait for the theater to darken: A film about 19th Century European Art/Music! Also, I was awaiting the biography of Ms. Mahler.
Afterward, I couldn't believe some people had the gall to get up and commend this film. Although the film is about enlightened artists, this film is so bourgeois - and we never understand the female lead as she bounces from one bed to the next. The film is sumptuous-looking, and the production values are high - but this does not a good film make. The biggest culprit is the superficial and boring screenplay: There is just no depth in either the lead character, or her relationships with others. Barring feminist politics, the script just doesn't have it in the drama department. It's as if someone said, "Gee, if we make a film about Gustav Mahler's trampy wife, and put all these famous artists in it - that'll make a good film!".
Beresford was obviously gathering a mere paycheck, and Levy probably has friends in high places (what else has she written?!). -
nihilisia6 January 2005As with many biographical narratives, Bride of the Wind meanders more than most stories do. Because of this, one may have to be in a mood to do a little of the work while watching this movie.
I think the film has been very well executed. The acting, photography and directing are all beautifully and thoughtfully crafted. The subtle quality of the writing and acting enhances the force of human reality and delineates the truth of emotions in a way that no overly dramatic movie could.
One might compare this movie to the French movie, Camille Claudel, in that it is the story of a frustrated female artist whose energies are at least partially consumed by their roles as muses to more famous male creatives. However, Alma Mahler's character is quite different than Camille's.
I highly recommend this movie to anybody with an attention span, especially if you have any artistic leanings. 8/10 -
The lamest dialogue heard on the screen so far this year isn't helped by the director hiring actors so wooden that they compete with the furniture. See this movie only if you relish watching a large supporting cast of Viennese actors uncomfortably trying out their English on dialogue that a soap opera would reject.
-
Welcome to the life of Alma Mahler, literally enslaved by Gustav Mahler who did not realize it, but Alma could not cope with it, just submit and suffer. Then she had a passion for Walter Gropius with whom she will eventually marry but the passion will vanish as soon as the wedding will be consumed, or nearly. She will have some liaison with Oskar Kokoschka, before and after Gropius, but that will only lead to drama, even melodrama. Finally she will fall for Franz Werfel who did not come out of the drabness of the setting too much and more or less kept up with appearances. Alma Mahler may have had some potential but we will never know. She never really performed as a performer, a pianist it could have been, and it is not some seven or so songs published quite later that can tell us what she could have done in music if she had not been stifled by the fame of her husband and then the grandiose vision of her next two men. But the film does not show well enough how she was the real inspirer of Gustav Mahler, the woman who gave him the courage to renege his religion to capture the director's position at the Vienna opera. He will never survive this killing of not only his God, but of God altogether, and when he found out he had killed God he discovered in the wake of this realization that life was dead and that death had invaded life completely and that only the earth was left, the earth on which we tread before being buried in it. Earth the perpetual and eternal shroud. The death of their younger daughter, Maria, was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. He had to accept the call from the earth, from death and go into total darkness now the gate of light that does not cast a shadow was dead, had been killed along with God. That feeling of death, of absolute voidness and vacuum in the world, is so Jewish and yet so beyond Jewishness. That's probably what Alma could not stand up to, the constant contact with death that is so typical of Mahler's music. And now we have re-discovered the music of the Old testament, the Hebraic music codified and organized by King David, we can compare and we can discover its main accents are the same as some of the darkest music pieces Gustav Mahler composed. His wife was just fascinated by this morbidity she felt in the music and could not identify, and that fascination became a sense of duty after she had fallen into the snare and then, when the snare released her, she could never free herself from that call from the bottom of the grave of life itself. This particular film sets the emphasis on the fragile uncertainty of Alma's successive passions that lead to some kind of melodramatic approach and that does not satisfy my real curiosity and consciousness about this world in which Mahler committed the worst crime possible, to kill his own people's God. And God knows history was going to make his people pay for that assassination, which was not only Gustav Mahler's. Maybe it was a crime committed by a whole civilization and imposed in a cathartic way onto the Jews by this civilization turned materialistic.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines -
coymoon30 July 2001Author Susanne Keegan devoted ten years of research in writing the biography of Alma Mahler called The Bride of the Wind. The biopic film of the same name, directed by Bruce Beresford and written by Marilyn Levy, never even comes close to capturing the real grandeur, brilliance and ambiguity of this femme fatale and gifted musician.
Alma Schindler's life is highlighted during Vienna's golden age of artistic and musical achievement at the turn of the century. The first half of the film focuses primarily on her marriage to classical composer Gustav Mahler and her role as mother to daughters Maria and Anna. The film then moves on to the widowed Alma living in the shadow of Mahler as she develops relationships with architect Walter Gropius, expressionist painter Oskar Kokoschka and poet and novelist Franz Werfel. Attempting to be a sweeping historical and romantic drama, Bride of the Wind is thwarted ultimately by Ms. Levy's very superficial script. Her words fail to breathe any life into people and events. Most of the dialogue leans toward the absurd when you know that these artists were intellectuals with an abundance of creative talent.
As for the director, Bruce Beresford has done some fine work in previous films such as Tender Mercies and Driving Miss Daisy. Unfortunately, he manages to direct this entire film without any inspiration or passion, which the story cries out for.
The casting of Australian actress Sarah Wynter is a major flaw. Ms. Wynter fails to bring any spontaneity, sexuality or mystique to her character resulting in dreams of a Kate Winslet or Rachel Weisz giving us a much more vibrant Alma Mahler. As usual, Welch actor Jonathan Pryce gives a rich performance as Alma's self-absorbed husband, Gustav Mahler, with a striking resemblance to the real Gustav. A round of applause goes to Swiss actor Vincent Perez for evoking any emotional response to the film. Whether he's hot-tempered, passionate, pathetic or even tragic, he's absolutely captivating on screen.
There is, however, a sumptuous flavor to the film in its lush set designs, finely detailed drawing rooms, painting studios and the most gorgeous costumes. The soundtrack is spectacular with a seamless blend of music composed by both Gustav and Alma, as well as some original pieces by Stephen Endelman. Alas, so much potential but little radiance. -
ozlock13 August 2002The rating of others amazes me. However, I do think that one might need to be a classical movie lover, and perhaps a Mahler lover. This is a great movie, and it has everything: beauty, taste, sex, mystery and a fascinating ending with the doings of Alma's daughter. The most amazing thing is the incredible feminism of Alma for the time--a time two decades before women in the US gained their franchise. For that reason alone, it is a fascinating movie. But be warned: I hate just about every movie one can see in the houses today with people flying up walls and employing robots to do their evils. This is a thinking person's movie.
-
esete200120 June 2001At the end of the movie, I could not really understand why so many accomplished men were so taken by this beautiful yet shallow woman. The movie failed to show her passion or her talents in any foreseeable way. Alma was depicted as just a pretty wooden doll who showed faint signs of a woman with great zest, but this was not brought to life in this dull experience of a movie.
Jonathan Pryce was so under-utilized and frankly speaking, the music he conducted in the movie was not moving-since I think more dramatic pieces could have been used to emphasize his characters greatness and his torment as a refugee from his past.
It was exciting to see Klimt and Gropius come to life in a movie, but they were shown as boring and uninspiring men, unlike the legacies they left behind in real life.
The accents were irritating, and so it was very distracting and difficult to remain focused on what was being said throughout the film. (Much like Johnny Depp's attempt at a gypsy accent in "Chocolat").
This movie needed more work on the dialogues between the characters and more focus on its intent. The producers seem to have depended on scenery rather than substance. -
pkwsbw12 September 2004I rented this movie because not too long ago I visited Vienna, and am very interested it its time as a cultural heavyweight in the decades leading up to World War I. I loved seeing street scenes and buildings that I recognized, and I knew enough about the artists portrayed to keep my interest up. But as other reviewers here have said, there was something missing from the screenplay. The story was too matter of fact. It was just like a simple diary. After reading other reviews here, the movie "Reds" [Diane Keaton, Warren Beatty] came to mind. They are similar films, but Reds has infinitely better writing, and is therefore far more compelling. Perhaps this film should have been made as a documentary.
-
Kirpianuscus27 March 2017and, maybe, it is enough. because it is not real easy to define, in right manner, a period and its remarkable personalities. the only problem - the portrait of Alma Mahler. too simple, almost a sketch, unfair in many scenes, reduced at the status of hunter of men. and, if you accept that, it is honest to remark than it is one of the sides of her personality. because she is, in same measure, an artist. not at the level of her well known husbands/lover but a voice in a period which remains defined by the freedom of creation. and this aspect of Alma Mahler seems be ignored in the film. but this sin is far to be impressive. only common to many filmmakers looking only to impress and to give perfect versions for a public who, in many senses, remains unknown.