Ludwig II

For many many years I wanted to see this movie, a film you never get to see on TV or at a Visconti retrospective at the NFT or one of the Curzon cinemas here in London. Perhaps it is so because this film has been so much underrated by critics and public that it drags far behind the director's most famous and praised works (The Leopard, Rocco, La Terra Trema, etc).

I read in a biography of the director that "Ludwig" was a mammoth project that took four production companies from different countries to put up the budget, it obsessed and consumed Visconti to the the extent of almost killing him when he suffered a stroke as a result of long working hours and too much mental strain, went well over schedule and budget and finally was taken away from the author's hands by the producers and butchered and re-edited in order to make it shorter, simpler and more viably commercial. The result was a mess almost half of the length of the original and with a lot of key scenes missing, presenting an inconsistent story full of plot holes and with characters appearing now and then from nowhere. It took several years after Visconti's death for his usual collaborators (d'Amico, Nanuzzi) to gather the missing sequences and re-edit the film into a cut as close to Visconti's idea as it could be. The result is a a DVD edition of 228 minutes. This movie, visually speaking, is with "Death in Venice" probably Visconti's most beautiful,lavish and rich in colours and small details. As to the story, I agree with other viewers on the fact that it is a bit too overlong and it drags at places and some sequences could have been shorter without the plot missing anything. But then it seems like Visconti deliberately wanted to give it that sedate pacing in order to suit the dreamlike mental state of the protagonist during his reclusion in his castles and his lapses into his own fantasy world. In order to understand better Ludwig's personality I read one of his many biographies after watching the movie for the first time, and then I watched it again, and I could appreciate better Visconti's approach to the character. I think this is a movie worth of its director, and even with its flaws and extreme length it deserves better criticism and appreciation than it unfairly got since it first came out in 1972.

Helmut Berger is quite good here and has a remarkable resemblance to the real Ludwig, Romy Schneider is as beautiful as ever and the real Bavarian locations are breathtaking. The night sequence with Ludwig and Elizabeth riding in the snowy forest in the moonlight is one of the most beautiful and romantic I have ever seen in film. The cinematography alone makes "Ludwig" worth watching if you like beautiful things.

Hopefully this movie has gained some appreciation and seems to be getting better reviews nowadays that it did in the past. Many call it Visconti's lost masterpiece. Although I don't think it is one of his greatest works thematically speaking, it surely stands among the most beautiful and lyrical and it is one of my favourite choices for a long winter evening.

I loved it. The historical story is phenomenal of course, but its treatment by Visconti is not banal either. I just saw the restored version (I am speaking of the 4-hours long version in Italian (subtitled in English) in a movie theater recently on a big screen, and that kind of total immersion in the world of "mad" king Ludwig gives you empathy with this notoriously elusive character, as bizarre as his behavior might have appeared to his contemporaries, and a sensual feel for the era. I am still swooning over the lush art direction, astounding costumes, plethora of decorative details - and it certainly does not hurt that the film crew used the real Bavarian locations of Ludwig's life. Gorgeous Romy Schneider's as Empress Elizabeth of Austria steals the screen from Helmut Berger on her few appearances, but , oh boy, all the actors do a great job, and by the end of movie, this entire cast of strong and weak characters becomes as familiar to the viewer as... your own family.

Being offered something common (no matter if it is a painting, a musical bit, a play or a movie) one can praise it, criticize it, evaluate it according to some standards. Yet, what happens if one encounters something elaborate, something that knows no limits of standardized conventions, something that follows no paths of shallow commonness?

This seems to be the case with a few pearls of artistic cinema, including LUDWIG (1972) by great aristocrat-director Luchino Visconti (1906-1975). As Visconti's most underrated work, this is the film that I have owned for 5 years, the film I have seen a considerable number of times; yet, the film I have found so hard to fully understand. Nevertheless, a rhetorical question seemed to help me in such a lack of understanding: is it possible to fully understand a human being, is it possible to fully understand oneself? The similar idea appears to be hidden in this film.

LUDWIG, as it is well known, tells the story of the 'eccentric' (for some) or 'fairy tale' (for others) king of Bavaria, Ludwig II (1845-1886) who is now famous mostly among tourists who visit the elaborate, almost dreamlike castles in the southern Land of Germany. While getting to know his psyche, we realize that Ludwig was an extraordinary psyche, someone filled with contradictions, absorbed in struggling for the sublime beauty, living seriously within the illusive walls of an unfulfilled reality. Meanwhile, Ludwig, with certain characteristics, appeared to be 'much ahead of his time.'

Visconti, having deeply analyzed the phenomenon of that man, not only develops these aspects but brings them back to life by means of three miracles on screen: flawless direction, breathtaking sets and talented cast.

Although some people may detest Mr Berger for some opinions expressed in public, we cannot deny the fact that the film owes much to him. Berger appears to give one of the most sublime performances in the leading role. He makes LUDWIG a genuine analysis, a must see for all movie buffs by portraying a unique, sophisticated man threatened by fears, filled with dense emotions, carnal pleasures, suffering from the quest for the blissful and illusive reality; an eccentric experiencing the storms of mind, an artist-dreamer gradually disillusioned by the mute world of contemporaries. How modern and, yet, how universal the character appears to be in his search for the individual world! All this is so well manifested that the viewer is not merely watching, being an observer of the character's hard states of mind: he/she is experiencing a slow, perhaps sometimes tedious, but exceptionally claustrophobic journey with the main character; yet not so much the journey of tear-jerking sweet compassion but something far more than this, something revealed in the self-reflection.

Berger and Visconti allow us to experience this journey into the mind of a human being that aims at being uncommon rather than decent. Gradually, we are led into the strange world of the king and, unexpectedly, into the unknown perceptions that we ourselves own. We get to know Ludwig as the feminine moon rather than the masculine sun. He is not ready to make love to women because his feelings occur to be the personally peculiar inventions of his mind. Therefore, he turns to homosexual pleasures being, in this way, a reflection of Visconti himself. Extraordinary images of lavish elegance, subtle imagination throughout the film besides the aforementioned Berger's exceptional talent and Visconti's excellent direction help us in this journey.

When we consider other performances, Romy Schneider seems to be the other 'treasure' of the film...not as beautiful yet saccharine Sissi but as delicious, disillusioned, mature Empress Elizabeth. Her strongest point here is the cold attractiveness. She is the absolute female beauty, the 'dove' Ludwig is impressed by; yet, a woman he finally does not let into his castle. Although I very much appreciate her role in Marischka's SISSI trilogy (1955, 1956, 1957), I must admit that here, at last, under the direction of great maestro whom she highly respected, Romy was able to interpret Elizabeth in the accurate manner. She perfectly portrays a very independent yet contradictory character who is already aware of the fact that history forgets us and the bitter conclusion that the world does not care. Her appearances in the movie are astounding including her looks, her acting and her wardrobe, mostly black which is inspired by the later photos of the Kaiserin Von Oesterreich.

The great performances are also given by the supporting cast, in particular Trevor Howard as king Ludwig's idol-composer Richard Wagner with his destructive manners, extravagant nature yet powerful illusion resembled in 'a figure' so much glorified and appreciated within the mind of the king. I also liked Silvana Mangano as Cosima, Wagner's wife whom he offers an unusual Christmas gift in the memorable scene...

However, it would be highly unjust to claim that only performance make the movie an elaborate cinematic production. It is much more, it is foremost VISCONTI, his unique style focused on single important details and the entire psychology of the character's development. Besides, it is the clever script and authentic sets including Neuschweistein Castle, Herrenchiemsee, Bad Ischl, etc. It is, finally, the musical score that appears to be beautifully fitted within particular scenes that one cannot omit. Therefore, any shortened version does not make sense at all as Wolfram Schütte nicely put it (1975) referring to omissions: "Who has seen the film in Germany has, in fact, never seen it."

Highly recommended movie and a must DVD release! 9/10

"Du Warst Ein Maerchenkoenig, Die Freiheit Das War Dein Tron...Koenig Ludwig, Wir Vergessen Dich Nicht" (you were a fairy tale king and freedom was your throne...king Ludwig, we won't forget you). So says a German 'Lied' (song) by singer Bianca. Utopian as it may seem, isn't that, after all, something we really don't forget?

As a deeply interest on European's history, I'd already knew about this mad king of the Bavaria a long time ago, Ludwig just came at my hands this years and was too long, then I had decided spent the last friday night watching this restored Visconti's masterpiece, what a great movie indeed, but the cut off version stayed lame and was a flop at release time, assembled again it's was the closest that they could get as early Visconti's concept, the king Ludwig was presented as a lunatic man for arts, sponsored the financial excesses of Richard Wagner, and drained the already rundown Bavaria's treasury on those useless Castles which he dares to build in exchange of the penury of his people, also Visconti alludes the decaying process of a King who wasn't linked with reality at all, he living in a parallel world as screened, plus Visconti was visionary when cast Helmut Berger whose had an extremely sameness with the real Ludwig, what a lucky, just mourns a small appearance of Sissi (Romy Schneider) on the plot for obvious reasons, furthermore exposes the odd Ludwig's weakness as his shy behavior and how he handles with your latent homosexuality as well, the history as a whole teach us that the ordinary statesmen rarely go down in history, instead those mad rulers that through their wacky minds were often recalled, aside be too long more than four hours the picture doesn't tired me, due so valuable asset to understand the German merger and how it really did happens, it gave me priceless clues for whom Germany deserves his unification, apart the Ludwig the mad the movie brings to light the German's history!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 9

I don't know whether to give it a "7" or an "8" so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and scored it "8". VERY nice film, though somewhat longish, about a very artistic, but also paranoid ruler of the 19th century. The period settings seemed, to me anyway, authentic. For example, it shows the interior glass lamps of the 1860s burning to produced light; then showing how by the late 1880s these lamps being the electric lamps that we today are familiar with. Ludwig II was an early advocate of the use of electricity; which was a new technology in his day and age. Other settings are definitely authentic to that day and age, and it is interesting to see how people did things in the 19th century. Having said that; it is unfortunate that medical technology was not then near as advanced as today. Ludwig could certainly have been treated successfully for his paranoia with some drugs that we have today; but were not available then.

Helmet Burger is simply speaking, Ludwig. He very closely physically resembles the historical figure, and I have no doubt that his behavior does also. One gets the nagging impression that Helmut Berger was the reincarnation of Ludwig!! Romy Schneider reprized her role as Empress Elizabeth of Austria; at first with some trepidation then with tremendous enthusiasm. By the time filming ended she certainly felt that her portrayal as a more mature Sissy was the ideal role for her. In fact, the only picture of herself in costume that she displayed in her apartment was of the role she played in this movie.

The major problem with this movie, and the reason why this film was never popular in the United States, is that you have to know quite a lot of European 19th century history to really appreciate it. Until the advent of DVDs; which gave one the opportunity to play and replay this movie at will, and of on-line encyclopedias that allowed one to do some quick historical research- most of the movie was probably unfathomable to most Americans. Today, with the tools that I mentioned this movie can be appreciated by the average viewer. Watch out for the language problem in this movie; it is certainly a little disconcerting at first as this movie has German actors, in roles set in Germany, speaking not German, but rather Italian!