Alma, la fiancée du vent

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.

At the end of the movie, I could not really understand why so many accomplished men were so taken by this beautiful yet shallow woman. The movie failed to show her passion or her talents in any foreseeable way. Alma was depicted as just a pretty wooden doll who showed faint signs of a woman with great zest, but this was not brought to life in this dull experience of a movie.

Jonathan Pryce was so under-utilized and frankly speaking, the music he conducted in the movie was not moving-since I think more dramatic pieces could have been used to emphasize his characters greatness and his torment as a refugee from his past.

It was exciting to see Klimt and Gropius come to life in a movie, but they were shown as boring and uninspiring men, unlike the legacies they left behind in real life.

The accents were irritating, and so it was very distracting and difficult to remain focused on what was being said throughout the film. (Much like Johnny Depp's attempt at a gypsy accent in "Chocolat").

This movie needed more work on the dialogues between the characters and more focus on its intent. The producers seem to have depended on scenery rather than substance.

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?!).

I believe that this film has had very few cinema releases due to the rotten critiques it received.

I saw it at a special screening in Canberra hosted by the director (with witty description of the trials and tribulations involved in its production and non-release). I saw it as an 'OK' biopic and certainly better than so much of the characterless violent drivel served up these days (this of course dates me). I think it deserved more exposure than it got - a worthy entry in the great director's portfolio ..... Remember, the critics usually get it wrong .... and they do not pay to see the films.

Vienna is beautiful, Mahler's wife, Alma is a forgotten feminist hero whose story deserves telling.