pixelvision-04556 When seeing this movie I first thought I was going to see a biopic about this great composer. I was mistaking. I liked the idea to build up the story with flashbacks during a train-journey with his wife Alma. The various flashbacks handling crucial (according to Russel) moments of Mahler's life (childhood, father-relation, antisemitism, problematic relation with Alma,...) What's wrong with this movie? Well, lots of things. The casting of the main characters is questionable. Yes Georgina Hale is a fine looking woman, but she's not Alma. In the movie everything is simplified, there's no room for subtlety. The way Mahler finds inspiration in his environment is simply ludicrous. There's also a cheap allusion on the Death in Venice character (Visconti's movie on the Mann novel) accompanied by the great music from that movie. The music in this movie however is poor. Mahler wrote so many great pieces and there's very few in the movie. And when there is an interesting piece, then it's some horrible translated version. Russel doesn't seem to know the difference between antisemitism and Nazism, according the depicting of Cosima Wagner (wearing a WW II helmet - Mahler died in 1911) in an embarrassing scene which has to portray Mahler's switch to catholicism.When I compare this movie to Visconti's movie Ludwig (an absolute masterpiece) which I saw a few days earlier, I can only give this movie three stars. (mostly for the nice views)

jonathanruano The life of Gustav Mahler could potentially be turned into a brilliant film if the right combination of great actors and a good screenplay is achieved. As for Ken Russell's "Mahler" film, it is a close call, but ultimately it gets thumbs down. Robert Powell does a good job playing the protagonist, but everyone one else in the film is average or mediocre. But the main weakness of "Mahler" is the screenplay. The narrative is disorganized and jumps all over the place. First we see Mahler at the end of his life, then we see him as a child, then we see him at the end of his life again, then we see him as the young and ambitious composer willing to do anything to get ahead in the music world, then switch back to his meeting with a doctor in Paris, then to a cottage where Mahler tells his wife Alma (Georgina Hale) that she should abandon composing music, etc., etc. Disoriented? Don't worry. You are not alone.But worse than the scattered presentation is the undercurrent of silliness running through the movie. If you are going to do a movie about Mahler, then present your subject matter in an intelligent and serious way. But Russell does not do that. He has this tendency of getting carried away. At best, Russell's over the top filmmaking could generate incredible laughter. But if the joke does not work, then the result is incredibly embarrassing. Having Gustav Mahler fantasize about his wife Alma as a cocoon is not only strange, but also absurd. If Russell was trying to make a joke out of this sequence, then the joke did not work. Another scene has Alma Mahler playing a topless stripper for several Nazis, one of whom is her lover. I guess no one told Ken Russell that the Nazi party did not exist in 1911. But perhaps the most ridiculous scenes, where Russell goes way overboard, involve Gustav Mahler's conversion to Catholicism. First Gustav lowers his trousers to Emperor Franz Joseph after the latter asked him to do so. This scene was inserted to bring up the composer's Jewish identity. Then Gustav Mahler has this fantasy encounter with Cosima Wagner who is dressed -- get this! -- as a dominatrix with a swastika on her leather pants. Was this scene necessary? Apparently, Gustav has to become Cosima's sex slave to convert to Catholicism and get a job at the Vienna Opera House. When watching this scene, I could not help but think that Russell was portraying not Mahler's fantasies, but his own, and that his inspiration came not from the early 20th century, but the sleaziest strip clubs and dominatrix clubs of London.The result is a film that has some interesting scenes, but is otherwise dragged down by silly fantasies. This film is filled from beginning to end with Mahler's compositions, and yet we are given no insight into his genius or his humanity. Mahler was probably one of the finest composers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But Russell makes Mahler the subject of a freak show, in which the protagonist is put on display and humiliated. Perhaps the director is trying to make a joke or maybe he is trying to tweak the noses of professional film directors who take their craft seriously. Maybe Russell is even making fun of Mahler and his obsession with conformity. Whatever Russell is trying to do, "Mahler" plays like a joke in poor taste.

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.

FloatingOpera7 I disagree with viewers who have claimed that this movie is over-the-top and excessive, as some other Ken Russell movies. It is true that the British director cultivated shock, gore and excessive cinematography that often resembled heavy LSD hallucinations or a Bosch paintings. But he felt he was only ahead of his time in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. Prime examples of this are his Tommy, Lisztomania and The Devils. But "Mahler" is actually his most tame and restrained. I found the film genuinely moving and haunting. It's slow-paced, quite talky and very very musical in nature. Robert Powell stars as the anguished composer Gustav Mahler, Georgina Hale as his wife Alma and Antonia Ellis as the dark and seductive Cosima Wagner. The film is partially historic partially psychological and partially dream-like. It is true that Mahler, who was born Jewish, converted to Catholicism simply for the sake of landing a prestigious job as conductor of the Vienna State Opera. His relationship with Cosima Wagner, Richard Wagner's widowed wife, did in fact have something detrimental about it. In the film, it's hinted they are lovers and that Cosima has managed to isolate him from his wife and children. With the music of Mahler and Wagner in the soundtrack, and fine performances by the lead stars, this is indeed Ken Russell's most psychological works of drama. Essentially, it's about the downfall of a man who has compromised his ethics and sacrificed his religion for the sake of money and fame.Robert Powell, Antonia Ellis and Georgina Hale carry most of the movie. Alma, who was largely considered a big name in feminist history and a brilliant woman in her own right, felt eclipsed by the genius of Mahler. Their marriage was never happy and ended in divorce. Cosima Wagner was notoriously Anti-Semitic, in fact, it is said she was far more so than her husband Richard Wagner. Antonia Ellis does do a very over-the-top performance, at one point in a dream sequence even dressing up as a Nazi dominatrix in the quite hilarious silent film parody in which Mahler is converted into Catholicism. There is even a funny song to the strains of Wagner's Ride of The Valkyries. This and the Death Fantasy in which Mahler imagines he is being buried alive and Alma is dancing over his grave and carrying out numerous affairs are the only Russell elements that fall into excess. But most of the film is quite haunting and lovely to look at. Highly recommended as a Russell film to watch without judgment of his other works.