Ludwig ou le crépuscule des dieux

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.

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!

Luchino Visconti's masterpiece - beautifully restored to the full 4 hours+ length on dvd in Germany - is breathtaking due to the Maestro's imprints alone. We see lush castle's, gold glitter, men in black or silver talking morals, and persons fighting their destiny ... and loose. Ludwig has something extra though: never seen the 110% Englishman Trevor Howard better as the very German Richard Wagner. And words will never be enough for yet another brilliant role of Romy Schneider, portraying Elisabeth rather than her renowned Sissy here.

The sheer brilliance of Visconti comes to light with the performance of Helmut Berger. Quite known as an actor in both Italy and the German speaking territories, he really goes above and beyond in his role as King Ludwig, the boy destined to drown in himself as a man.

Please do not miss this superb film, even though the bilingual (Italian-German) DVD of Kinowelt/Arthaus silly enough doesn't give any English subtitles.

This long and lavish biopic of the mad Mittel European monarch is both Luchino Visconti's grandest and - oddly enough - his most intimate and personal film. Visconti's autobiography in all but name, it tells the story of a cultured aristocrat who ruins himself through an obsessive love of art, luxury and handsome young men. The film paints King Ludwig as a well-meaning but hapless victim of his grasping courtiers, artists and lovers. If Visconti himself was an arch-manipulator and a bit of a sadist, well...Ludwig is one of those films where life and art never do quite match up.

Most revealing is its portrayal of the aging king's obsession with a pretty but none-too-talented actor, Joseph Kainz. It is tempting to view their romance as a mirror of Visconti's own passion for the exquisite Helmut Berger, who - a twist within a twist - actually stars as King Ludwig in this film. In the roles he played without Visconti as his Svengali, Berger is barely competent. In Ludwig (as in The Damned) he gives a staggering performance, ranging from fresh-faced idealism to homoerotic heartbreak to bloated waste.

Shot just after the collapse of Visconti's long-cherished film of Proust, Ludwig is rich in characters who reflect (whether consciously or not) the gilded Belle Epoque monsters that haunt the pages of A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu. As the Empress Elisabeth of Austria, poor Ludwig's magnetic but manipulative cousin, Romy Schneider might just as well be playing the Duchesse de Guermantes. The opportunistic composer Richard Wagner (Trevor Howard) and his scheming wife Cosima (Silvana Mangano) stand in as the vulgar social-climbing Verdurins. The king himself is a kindred spirit of the Baron de Charlus - a doomed aesthete who refined tastes are at odds with his sordid love-life.

With its majestic cast and flawless photography and design, Ludwig has all the makings of a screen masterpiece. Alas, it falters badly in its last hour - which depicts the bourgeois conspiracy that topples Ludwig from his throne. Perhaps Visconti (who identified so closely with the mad monarch) could not face up to the waning of his own powers. He suffered a crippling stroke after finishing this film, and would never again attempt work on such a scale. Ludwig stands as a flawed testament - as a portrait of one enigma by another.

>