Klimt

Despite the opinion of many commenters, I really don't think that I wasted my time or money. In fact I enjoyed it a lot. I think the movie is just a series of beautiful shots with wonderful scenery and of course beautiful women and for that I declare it OK. I admit that it is not well-acted or there are many annoying parts (excessive use of sharp and noisy cuts) but it is an amusing work in its own way. I don't get it; why some people get disappointed when they see something that is not what they expect. Why it should be an accurate story of Klimt's life? The bottom line is if you are interested in painting or photography, you have to consider seeing this film.

Klimt (2006)

John Malkovich is talented but so quirky and full of himself he nearly ruins many of his movies. Surely he sees how affected he can sometimes be? Here he plays the Austrian artist Gustav Klimt in the years before WWI, and though we don't quite know what Klimt was like, we know he didn't play his life being John Malkovich. Biopics always struggle with the character against the actor, of course, since history is what it is, and so you swallow all this and see what the actor and the director can do within these constraints.

The director in this case is the late Raul Ruiz, the Chilean director who just died in Paris with a small cult following and a growing reputation. He concentrates not on Klimt's art, or even Klimt's attitudes as an artist of his time (this is the time of early Picasso, late Cezanne, and the growing influence of Gauguin). Instead it deals with Klimt's personality, which we know the least about, emphasizing his vulgarity, his obsession with nude women around him as much as possible, and his countless children for whom he apparently did as little as possible.

What might have been more interesting is to see a young Klimt being transformed by a 6th century Italian fresco with all its gold leafwork (this is true), or to maybe see him interact with the Vienna Secessionists in their effort, as a group, to break from the academy. What we get instead is a fantasy about the women around him, including a bizarre and willing entrapment of Klimt by a wealthy woman and her double (or twin?) which turns into a kind of erotic sex game with a man watching behind 2-way glass. Then there is a mysterious fellow who seems to only exist in Klimt's head--he's fascinating, yet only half realized.

If Ruiz had taken all this into something purely fantastic, where the trappings of history were shed, it might have been a transporting and special movie, an actual cinematic experience on its own terms. At times it tries, and there are some distortions and some beautiful moments, a bit out of place in the narrative, that stand on their own.

But mostly this lurches and jerks from situation to situation. The art is great, what we see of it, and the sets are nice, though even they are filmed too often with a yellowed dullness that defies the outrageous decorative beauty of the time. (I just happened to see "The Wings of the Dove" set in the same period and the set and costume design blows "Klimt" away). All of this is too bad especially for an art movie about an artist who believed in total aesthetic immersion--where everything, including your toilet paper holder, had to be an artistic component of a life of art.

It's not a disaster, but it's certainly a feminist's nightmare--where Klimt might have defended his painting of women as being honest and where the sex might have been free expression and liberation, the movie pushes all this into pure voyeurism and submissiveness. Women dangle and prance and decorate the movie sets, and your screen, the way Klimt, who was no feminist, might have approved, but which isn't accurate. It isn't about an equality in free loving sex, it's about women from a man's point of view. Period. Some of you will like that, but I did not.

i have always been a fan of Malkovich's work but this one is a real stinker despite the good effort and the risks Saffron Burrows took for her role in the movie. the director's did a poor job since the film doesn't hold up or live up to the fame of artist. there is no opening shots,, the first scenes are so behind the purpose of the story.. the soundtracks were another failure by the director... the camera-work is odd and pointless and in no way helps the watcher follow the storyline,, the script is another stinker as its cheesy and odd (bad odd). overall, the film is not worth your while and watching for the purpose of knowing more about the artist is pointless since it will do nothing but misguide you ( you better off reading his book)... i would not suggest anyone to watch this film unless you are a die-hard fan of Saffron Burrows and wants to see more of her.

This is a superb movie; IF (and this is a big if) one is already familiar with the life and work of Gustav Klimt. This movie was intended as an "art house" film, and was never meant to be a major theatrical release. However, even for an "art house" film it is rather specialized in how it portrays Gustav Klimt; and if one is not familiar with this artist (and Vienna at the turn of the 20th century) then this film is quite confusing and vague- the quantity and quality of female imagery notwithstanding. Despite its very specialized nature some major stars are in this film though only one is an American and even he lives and works mainly in Europe. That star is John Malkovich; who is in the title role. Malkovich gives a fine job though he does not resemble Klimt as closely as some other actors who have portrayed Klimt in the past (most notably August Schmolzer in "Bride of the Wind"). The only other actor in this film that may be recognized by Americans is Saffron Burrows; who portrays his great love interest. Her role is fictional, but serves as a continuity thread through this film which depicts in an allegorical manner his career and life from 1900; when Klimt won a gold medal at the great Paris Exposition to 1918; when he died.

The other actors are notable European actors whose works have generally not been seen in the United States. The notable German actress Veronica Ferres portrays Emily Floge; Klimt's lifelong companion. Again, unless you are familiar with the life of Klimt the role of Floge in this movie is very difficult to understand. And, it is never explained in the movie. Basically, Klimt and Floge were in-laws by the marriage of Gustav's brother to Emily's sister. The seemed to never have been "lovers" but the unmarried Emily seems to have been a wife (as well as business partner) to Gustav in every other respect. It was a complex relationship and Ferres explains in a side featurette ("The Making of Klimt") the difficulty of showing this relationship. The Austrian actress Aglaia Szyszkowitz portrays "Mizzi"; a model who bore two kids for Klimt of which one is shown- his son Gustav. He never married her, and the movie implies that he saw his kids only occasionally without financially supporting them in any noticeable manner. In real life Klimt did financially support his children by this woman. Of note is that the nickname for Emily Floge was "Middi" and the pronunciation of the two names is very similar; adding to the already considerable confusion.

The movie does portray Klimt in a negative manner concerning his offspring. He acknowledged paternity of four children and the movies deals with the other two as well as the two of Mizzi. Those children are dealt with almost as afterthoughts and one is positively embarrassing (perhaps the ultimate embarrassment). In reality Klimt probably had many more kids and this concern is mentioned briefly in the film. The film is certainly critical of Klimt in this regard; as well as his attitude towards women in general. There are some historical inaccuracies in this film such as a nurse in a Vienna hospital in early 1918 who has a VERY obvious British accent. This is highly unlikely, to say the least, to have been the case considering that the Austrians were in war with the British at that point, but overall the historical settings and costumes are well researched. The movie overall is well researched, but, again, quite confusing to somebody who is not very familiar with the life of this genius. I recommend that anybody who wants to see the film to first read up and look at the artworks of Klimt. Then the film will make sense and be seen as the superb achievement it is.

I decided to rent this movie because there was a label on its cover - "WINNER. Moscow International Film Festival. Best Film" (distributed by KOCH Lorber Films, KLF-DV-3151). Technically it's not a lie - it's just misleading. The "Klimt" movie was a winner in a much smaller competition - "Russian Film Clubs Federation Award for Foreign Films" (there are a lot more prizes at this festival - Golden St.George, Silver St.George and so on). No more awards for this movie, and it reflects its light caliber.

I didn't like this movie, and I have to say I admire Klimt paintings. I don't think that Klimt was so stiff and also sleepy. There is much more life in one simple photograph from the artist Wiki page, than in this whole movie. All these endless camera rotations around subjects! And too much too loud music... And actually an absence of scenario...

They tried to sell this movie to public - nudes, decadent atmosphere, this misleading label. The ratings show that they failed... I give it 5 for some visual enjoyment I had... and some women hats there were really-really amazing!