3 commentaires
Donatello Dubini and Fosco Dubini have produced a well scripted film, giving a more in depth view of just one episode in Ludwigs life. Helmut Berger again plays Ludwig adding subtlety and experience to the role he played in the original film Ludwig (1972).
It's not often an actor gets to play the same role in a different film. Helmut Berger's portrayal of Ludwig was good in Ludwig (1972). In Ludwig 1881, he plays Ludwig again with all the experience he has gathered since the original film. Donatello Dubini and Fosco Dubini have produced a wonderful script, managing to tempt Helmut Berger back to play Ludwig again. The result is a King Ludwig II of more depth and subtlety and a poignant film with beautiful scenes of the Swiss lake.
The most memorable moment is when the king gives Josef Kainz a watch (also shown in Ludwig -1972).
It's not often an actor gets to play the same role in a different film. Helmut Berger's portrayal of Ludwig was good in Ludwig (1972). In Ludwig 1881, he plays Ludwig again with all the experience he has gathered since the original film. Donatello Dubini and Fosco Dubini have produced a wonderful script, managing to tempt Helmut Berger back to play Ludwig again. The result is a King Ludwig II of more depth and subtlety and a poignant film with beautiful scenes of the Swiss lake.
The most memorable moment is when the king gives Josef Kainz a watch (also shown in Ludwig -1972).
It is a film who I love. Very much, no doubts for Helmut Berger, for the nostalgia about Luchino Visconti ' s Ludwig and for wise crafted script.
And, of course, for cinematography, few scenes, clash between art and nature, the relation between the king looking for make ideal realitz and an actor who becomes, scene by scene, more pragmatic.
The rest of Helmut Berger was the kick to see it again. Being impressed by the precise, trait by trait , portrait of the king , for many reasons more impressive, admirable and touching than the neurotic character of 1972 film.
It is more than a beautiful film but , in some measure, a confession of a profound interesting actor and precious gift for a part of public, attached by his career under the touch of unique Visconti.
In short, a sort of experience, with fascinating nuances and sparkles.
And, of course, for cinematography, few scenes, clash between art and nature, the relation between the king looking for make ideal realitz and an actor who becomes, scene by scene, more pragmatic.
The rest of Helmut Berger was the kick to see it again. Being impressed by the precise, trait by trait , portrait of the king , for many reasons more impressive, admirable and touching than the neurotic character of 1972 film.
It is more than a beautiful film but , in some measure, a confession of a profound interesting actor and precious gift for a part of public, attached by his career under the touch of unique Visconti.
In short, a sort of experience, with fascinating nuances and sparkles.
- Kirpianuscus
- 22 mai 2023
- Permalien
I found this movie quite interesting, but I didn't like Helmut Bergers effeminate behaviour, was the King really like this? Or did they just put him into the "when a man is interested in other men he is effeminate" stereotype. Also, I found it quite ridiculous that in the movie the king had no beard, but in the end when the photograph of the real king taken with that actor he had a beard....