Bride of the Wind

I lived in Vienna for four years so I was really excited to see this movie. My attention was grabbed by the DVDs cover art which is a repackaging of The Kiss by Gustav Klimt. The late 1800s until World War II was a very unique time in the fields of art, psychology, music, architecture/design and literature that is very rarely touched upon nowadays. So I had high hopes. But I was disappointed in this movie and I felt it could have been in a much more interesting way. The actors were OK I guess. I don't think they had much in the dialogue department to work with. The points that would have made this much more interesting...the art, music and literary aspects...were just touched upon. But that said, it was billed as a story about one woman's life during this period and how she was a muse to some of the now famous men of the era. Actually I came away being much less sympathetic to this woman than I was before I saw the film. She seemed less of a muse than a woman who used famous men for her own ends. I find it unusual that out of all of Vienna, she managed only to make well-known men her lovers. Men such as Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kolkoschka, Water Gropius, Gustav Mahler and on and on. It really did no favors to this woman's reputation and I viewed her as kind of a user and a whiner. Yes she did not have a lot of freedom but it was the very early 1900s, neither did any other woman. She seemed to have the daring to jump from man to man in the days when this was simply not done in polite society. Yet she did not seem to have the courage to try to make it on her own in the field of music. If she was adventurous enough to throw caution to the wind and live such a bohemian lifestyle, I do not know why she would then have cause to complain about being stifled when she knew full well what marriage in that time entailed. How about having the courage to life your own life and pursue your own dreams in the field of music. Rather than depending on some man to fulfill your dreams then complaining when they are not. So I just found the storyline became very uninteresting very quickly and the other points such as the arts & culture of the time would have added much more interest to the film. But were just glossed over in the end.

The film seems to have been a history re-enactment on the life of Alma Schindler. It did not get into the details of the what, why and how of the relationships and inspirations. It basically just showed the events in her life. Maybe Sarah Wynter was not the right person for the role because she did not reveal in her role why all these men would fall for her and create greatness in her presence. Or maybe the dialog was too simplistic and things just jumped from courting to ending of the relationship without anybody knowing why it happened. Or the directing just didn't create that passion between any of the two characters for us to think that they would get together. I guess we'll never know.

I went to see the L.A. premiere of this film, in which the director and screenwriter (sic) attended. While looking through the tasteful, elegant, and researched program - I couldn't wait for the theater to darken: A film about 19th Century European Art/Music! Also, I was awaiting the biography of Ms. Mahler.

Afterward, I couldn't believe some people had the gall to get up and commend this film. Although the film is about enlightened artists, this film is so bourgeois - and we never understand the female lead as she bounces from one bed to the next. The film is sumptuous-looking, and the production values are high - but this does not a good film make. The biggest culprit is the superficial and boring screenplay: There is just no depth in either the lead character, or her relationships with others. Barring feminist politics, the script just doesn't have it in the drama department. It's as if someone said, "Gee, if we make a film about Gustav Mahler's trampy wife, and put all these famous artists in it - that'll make a good film!".

Beresford was obviously gathering a mere paycheck, and Levy probably has friends in high places (what else has she written?!).

The rating of others amazes me. However, I do think that one might need to be a classical movie lover, and perhaps a Mahler lover. This is a great movie, and it has everything: beauty, taste, sex, mystery and a fascinating ending with the doings of Alma's daughter. The most amazing thing is the incredible feminism of Alma for the time--a time two decades before women in the US gained their franchise. For that reason alone, it is a fascinating movie. But be warned: I hate just about every movie one can see in the houses today with people flying up walls and employing robots to do their evils. This is a thinking person's movie.

I watched this bit of eye candy in the hope that the story of Alma Schindler Mahler Gropius Werfel would unfold and the world could see a portrait of a daring, talented woman who was indeed liberated in nearly every sense of the word. Mahler is one of one of my favorite composers and I became fascinated with Alma Schindler, believe it or not, from a parody sung by Tom Lehrer. However, since that time, many, many years ago, I've managed to read several excellent biographies of Mahler as well as Alma Schindler's autobiography, which leads me to comment on this film.

Sadly, this film disappoints. It is a beautiful piece of work, with darkness wrought from bright colors, ala Bergman's Cries and Whispers, and with wonderful costumes. But, as the other reviews herein note, the script is weak and Sarah Wynter's performance is spotty. Indeed, the two male stars, Jonathon Pryce as Mahler and Vincent Perez as the artist, Oskar Kokoschka outshine Wynter's tentative characterization of Alma. Perez is especially bright, exuding passion and artistic madness, as biographer's have depicted the painter, a pioneer in early 20th Century expressionism. Peter Verhoeven as Gropius and Gregor Seberg as Werfel seem to get ground up and we're left wondering why they were written into the script...in spite of the fact, each played a significant role in the life of Alma Schindler Mahler Gropius Werfel. Too bad, they are underutilized. And, to continue slamming the script, they are badly depicted. Gropius, the great architectural innovator of the Bauhaus was hardly the foppish Mama's boy shown in the film. And, the passionate, multi-talented Franz Werfel, author of Song of Berndadette and Forty Days at Musa Dagh, was hardly the clowning caricature presented in the film. Even the solid performance of Welsh veteran Jonathon Pryce is led astray. The driven, passionate and often neurotic Mahler, compulsively washing his hands 12 times a day was not the staid, stoic older man shown in this film. So, alas, the great subject matter has been neglected. What results is not-a-bad movie about a fascinating woman that with a bit more research, better script, and a different leading lady could have been excellent, really excellent film.