The life of Gustav Mahler could potentially be turned into a brilliant film if the right combination of great actors and a good screenplay is achieved. As for Ken Russell's "Mahler" film, it is a close call, but ultimately it gets thumbs down. Robert Powell does a good job playing the protagonist, but everyone one else in the film is average or mediocre. But the main weakness of "Mahler" is the screenplay. The narrative is disorganized and jumps all over the place. First we see Mahler at the end of his life, then we see him as a child, then we see him at the end of his life again, then we see him as the young and ambitious composer willing to do anything to get ahead in the music world, then switch back to his meeting with a doctor in Paris, then to a cottage where Mahler tells his wife Alma (Georgina Hale) that she should abandon composing music, etc., etc. Disoriented? Don't worry. You are not alone.
But worse than the scattered presentation is the undercurrent of silliness running through the movie. If you are going to do a movie about Mahler, then present your subject matter in an intelligent and serious way. But Russell does not do that. He has this tendency of getting carried away. At best, Russell's over the top filmmaking could generate incredible laughter. But if the joke does not work, then the result is incredibly embarrassing. Having Gustav Mahler fantasize about his wife Alma as a cocoon is not only strange, but also absurd. If Russell was trying to make a joke out of this sequence, then the joke did not work. Another scene has Alma Mahler playing a topless stripper for several Nazis, one of whom is her lover. I guess no one told Ken Russell that the Nazi party did not exist in 1911. But perhaps the most ridiculous scenes, where Russell goes way overboard, involve Gustav Mahler's conversion to Catholicism. First Gustav lowers his trousers to Emperor Franz Joseph after the latter asked him to do so. This scene was inserted to bring up the composer's Jewish identity. Then Gustav Mahler has this fantasy encounter with Cosima Wagner who is dressed -- get this! -- as a dominatrix with a swastika on her leather pants. Was this scene necessary? Apparently, Gustav has to become Cosima's sex slave to convert to Catholicism and get a job at the Vienna Opera House. When watching this scene, I could not help but think that Russell was portraying not Mahler's fantasies, but his own, and that his inspiration came not from the early 20th century, but the sleaziest strip clubs and dominatrix clubs of London.
The result is a film that has some interesting scenes, but is otherwise dragged down by silly fantasies. This film is filled from beginning to end with Mahler's compositions, and yet we are given no insight into his genius or his humanity. Mahler was probably one of the finest composers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But Russell makes Mahler the subject of a freak show, in which the protagonist is put on display and humiliated. Perhaps the director is trying to make a joke or maybe he is trying to tweak the noses of professional film directors who take their craft seriously. Maybe Russell is even making fun of Mahler and his obsession with conformity. Whatever Russell is trying to do, "Mahler" plays like a joke in poor taste.
But worse than the scattered presentation is the undercurrent of silliness running through the movie. If you are going to do a movie about Mahler, then present your subject matter in an intelligent and serious way. But Russell does not do that. He has this tendency of getting carried away. At best, Russell's over the top filmmaking could generate incredible laughter. But if the joke does not work, then the result is incredibly embarrassing. Having Gustav Mahler fantasize about his wife Alma as a cocoon is not only strange, but also absurd. If Russell was trying to make a joke out of this sequence, then the joke did not work. Another scene has Alma Mahler playing a topless stripper for several Nazis, one of whom is her lover. I guess no one told Ken Russell that the Nazi party did not exist in 1911. But perhaps the most ridiculous scenes, where Russell goes way overboard, involve Gustav Mahler's conversion to Catholicism. First Gustav lowers his trousers to Emperor Franz Joseph after the latter asked him to do so. This scene was inserted to bring up the composer's Jewish identity. Then Gustav Mahler has this fantasy encounter with Cosima Wagner who is dressed -- get this! -- as a dominatrix with a swastika on her leather pants. Was this scene necessary? Apparently, Gustav has to become Cosima's sex slave to convert to Catholicism and get a job at the Vienna Opera House. When watching this scene, I could not help but think that Russell was portraying not Mahler's fantasies, but his own, and that his inspiration came not from the early 20th century, but the sleaziest strip clubs and dominatrix clubs of London.
The result is a film that has some interesting scenes, but is otherwise dragged down by silly fantasies. This film is filled from beginning to end with Mahler's compositions, and yet we are given no insight into his genius or his humanity. Mahler was probably one of the finest composers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But Russell makes Mahler the subject of a freak show, in which the protagonist is put on display and humiliated. Perhaps the director is trying to make a joke or maybe he is trying to tweak the noses of professional film directors who take their craft seriously. Maybe Russell is even making fun of Mahler and his obsession with conformity. Whatever Russell is trying to do, "Mahler" plays like a joke in poor taste.