clanciai The film was made shortly after the death of Romola Nijinskaya, the wife of the legendary dancer, as if the producers just had waited for her death to be able to make the film. It is very carefully done, sticking meticulously to the well documented case as it was lovingly presented by his wife herself in her two books about her famous husband. It's a sad story, of course, if not even like a Greek tragedy, and the film admirably tries to embrace and make the tragedy conceivable, by going into details about the passions of Diaghilev, Nijinsky, Fokine, the lovely Karsavina (the most sympathetic of them all) and Romola. But the chief asset of the film is the great acting by them all, including Ronald Pickup as Stravinsky ('a very dry man' according to Nijinsky, who didn't like him at all,) Alan Badel at his best as the Baron Ginzburg, Jeremy Irons as Fokine and above all Alan Bates as a superb Diaghilev, quite human in all his necessary monstrosity as an impresario with too many eccentric characters under his wings, and George de la Pena as an almost painfully true and convincing Nijinsky. To this comes the wonderful ballet performances, including "The Spectre of the Rose" (Nijinsky's tour de force) and "The Afternoon of a Faun", the crucial turning point in his career from only dancer to controversial choreographer. Deserving the highest merit of all is the most admirable reconstruction of the ballets russes at that time with the fabulous art works of Leon Bakst, Diaghilev's unique scenographer, turning all Fokine's and Nijinsky's ballets into sumptuous living fairy tales of fantastic dancing, perhaps most clearly illustrated by Rimsky-Korsakov's "Sheheradzade", which music finally crowns the film in the end, which is needed, since, as I said, it's a sad story, but it couldn't have been made better. The only objection that would be relevant is the failure of making Nijinsky's lapse into madness credible. It was actually a long process, he wasn't definitely past hope until 1917 (4 years after the end of the film), and the main reason was not the crises of his relationships but the impact on him by the First World War. This important piece in the puzzle is missing in the film. Instead you see him ending up in a strait-jacket without further explanation. It's a great film none the less, and as time goes by it will certainly win the acclaim it deserves as one of the great ballet film classics, second only to "The Red Shoes" 1948 and "The Specter of the Rose" 1946, which actually also is a masked portrait of Nijinsky (see my review of that film).

Armand a love story. not with profound roots. not very inspired. useful for colors of a form of homage. only as decoration for a story who remains charming only for its potential. a great potential of a dark subject. so, it is difficult to define it more than a film with George de la Pena and Alan Bates, a gay story and about a victim of his too great ambition. a film like an old jewel. or like drawing flower. interesting desire, seductive project and cages of common tools. and flavor of a world not always realistic. a movie about Nijinsky. not bad, not attractive. only isle of a form to conquer public. and remember of a ballet hero. is it enough ? maybe not.

moonspinner55 Acclaimed ballet dancer Vaslav Nijinsky, the "Polish peasant" who became the toast of Europe in the early 1900s, isn't very well served by this meandering biography which looks and sounds good but seems internally stultified. Nijinsky (played as a spoiled child by newcomer George De La Pena) attempts to extend his talents to the choreography of his latest showcase, under the tutelage of his lover and partner Sergei Diaghilev (Alan Bates), but cracks under the enormous pressure to be brilliant; meanwhile, a budding ballerina schemes her way into Nijinsky's arms after the star and his impresario have a romantic falling-out. Director Herbert Ross, apparently still riding the high from his 1977 ballet-themed drama "The Turning Point", has no new ideas on how to stage an electrifying or kinetic dance performance; the music direction is strong, however the magic of a timeless presentation is missing (what should have been the movie's strongest asset is in fact its weakest link). The temperament of artists in general is well-observed (if a bit over-the-top), however the love story between dancer and producer fails to come off. 1980 may still have been too early in the game to show passion between two men; Ross gives us a chaste rendering of it, followed by what seems like years of sniping and jealousy between the couple. Leslie Browne (a hold-over from "The Turning Point") never begins to suggest the cunning ambitions of a woman who hoped to 'change' Nijinsky', while the passion in that heterosexual union is confined to a single scene. What was everyone so bashful about? A brilliant little light show during the end credits is far more sparkling than anything in the rest of the film! *1/2 from ****

didi-5 This little-seen film by Herbert Ross chooses to focus on the rise and fall of Vaslav Nijinsky, petulant and superb dancer, and his stormy relationship with his producer-lover, Sergei Diaghilev. This story from with the heart of Ballet Russes has been well-documented before and here we see the descent into madness of a great, if unhinged artist.George De La Pena plays the title role, and his dancing is a dream. Alan Bates is excellent as Diaghilev, all repressed passion and deep thoughts. The film tries its best to portray this unorthodox relationship with the ballet at its core, but doesn't quite get there - a sign of the times, perhaps? A strength of 'Nijinsky' is the dance sequences which are replicated as they would have originally been performed, right up to the scandalous performance of the Fawn piece. The scenes where the unhappy dancer is confined to an asylum have less power but are as valid as any other sequence in the film.