Ludwig: A Paixão de um Rei

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?

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.

First released in 1972,with a running time of three hours,the movie was a colossal flop and it was sold by auction.It was the eighties before it was re-released as TV series,with a lot of added scenes :the running time was nearing four hours and the restored scenes gave the movie more substance.Now the film is often broadcast as a whole but its length and its very slow pace might repel some people.

It should not be missed though;it is one of Visconti's peaks,and probably the most underrated .In "la caduta dei degli"(1969),history was on the stage ,with the rise of the Nazis:the hero,Martin,(also played by Helmut Berger),was some kind of puppet in the hands of his mother and the Hitlerians.In "Ludwig",he stands alone,it's really the story of a solitary man,trying to establish a lasting relationship with one human being:first, Sophie,Sissy's sister :but it was not to succeed because he treated her like a Wagnerian heroin,or a Sissy ersatz .Sissy (Elisabeth,Empress of Austria)was not fooled:"do you want me to be your impossible love? " she says;of course she knew Ludwig was an invert.Wagner made use of Ludwig because he helped his career,but there was no friendship from him.Ludwig had to content himself with his (male) lovers he used to pick up everywhere around.

As the movie progresses,Ludwig is more and more alone,and his megalomania knows no bound.He makes up for his sad destiny with his extravagant castles,but politically he was still aware.He first refused to raise troops during the 1870 war and reluctantly did because of the Prussian' s pression;that might be the reason why,when you come to Bavaria today,the people there do not accept the fact Ludwig ended his life as an insane.

Helmut Berger was to make another movie with Visconti(gruppo di famiglia in un interno,1975),then his career quickly waned after Visconti's death;it was really too bad,because he had shown he could be an impressive actor.Romy Schneider portrayed Sissy for the fourth time(after the famous mushy trilogy "Sissi" "Sissi die junge Kaiserin" "Sissi ,Schicksal einer Kaiserin",which Schneider hated,),but this time in a historically accurate way.She acted as though she had got a score to settle with this character.(hear her lines about her husband and her family:it's a far cry from the Ernst Marischka's trilogy)

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

In this last part of his German trilogy, Visconti delves the most into the human psyche, and in particular it's contradictory forces within. On one hand the self-destructive urge for physical pleasure, on the other the spiritual search for the sublime. The Dionysean and the Apollonian. Body and soul.

Ludwig II, aka the "mad" king of Bavaria, is dragged to the limits by these two opposite forces. Losing focus on a vulgar reality, he surrenders to sexual perversion and yet also to a search for artistic purity, eventually leading him to madness, and finally to death. Trying in vein to find the sublime and eternal kingdom of the literary heroes he craves for, his behavior becomes more and more erratic until he is violently dethroned (a recurring theme in Visconti's work: the fall of aristocracy and the rise of bourgeois democracy).

Visconti directs this paradox with a highly elegant style, influenced by the romanticism of painters like Caspar David Friedrich and Frederic Edwin Church. The movie reaches a climax at around the third hour, when Ludwig and his protégé Joseph Kainz travel together through the endless frozen night, so that Ludwig shows Kainz his "real kingdom, the mountains under the moonlight, a world for ourselves, pure and uncontaminated". "Think about your soul, not about your body" Ludwig tells him. This a last hurrah. After Kainz's rejection, Ludwig declines further in decay and resignation.

The events depicting the conspiracy that dethrones him are grotesquely-staged and almost out of sync, emphasizing Ludwig's confusion and ill mental-state. Knowing his downfall is near, he confesses to one of the staff how he believes in the immortality of the soul and God's justice. "I've read many things about materialism", he says, "but it will never satisfy a man, cause he doesn't want to be put in the same level as beasts". That's a rare confession for Visconti.

After he is captured, the film once again alters in style, to a kind of austere chamber-cinema with a funereal feel. Near the end (and his death), Ludwig says to psychiatrist professor Gudden: "There is nothing more beautiful and fascinating than the night. They say the cult of the night, of the moon, is a maternal cult. The cult of sun, of daytime, is a masculine myth, therefore paternal. However the mystery, the greatness of night, for me lie in the infinite sublime kingdom of the heroes, which is also the kingdom of reason. Poor Dr. Gudden, you are forced to study me from dawn to dusk and from dusk to dawn. But I am an enigma, and I want to be an enigma forever, for the world and for myself".

Just like man. Sublime.