Undescribable Perfection

One of my all time favorites.

Fresh and Exciting

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

I don't usually write reviews with spoilers, but it is nearly impossible to discuss this film without revealing some of its major plot points, especially since there are so few of them."Death in Venice" is based upon a Thomas Mann novel. It is said Mann was inspired when he heard of Gustav Mahler's death. Mann was gay and Mahler was presumed by many to be gay, despite his marriage and offspring. So, Mann created the story about Gustav Aschenbach, borrowing elements from Mahler's life and his own.Aschenbach is, like Mahler, a creator--specifically a writer. While in Venice, he is consumed by two things: his concern about his own health and his fascination with a fourteen-year-old boy. His focus on the boy becomes an obsession and that obsession takes up ninety percent of the film.Director Visconti--also a gay man--decided to make Aschenbach a composer. He also used some Mahler symphonies as background music.The other ten percent of the film are mundane happenings and Aschenbach's internal dialogue, with flashbacks that include philosophical discussions about art. (Does art arise from the intellect or the senses?) But these are minor, undeveloped diversions from the film's main themes. The cinematography is sometimes evocative of the works of William Turner or, more often, of Renoir. But the camera work often undermines the images, especially when Visconti repeatedly uses zoom to beat the viewer over the head with the obvious. The pace of the film is leisurely. That can be explained, in part, by the fact that the film takes place in the world of the leisure class. Aschenbach is living among those who are restrained and mannered. Starched collars and stiff behavior are the norm. But the languorous tempo only serves to accentuate the fact that this is a film in which very little actually happens. In the end, this film is not very entertaining. And its main themes have been explored much more effectively in other films.

Rarely has so much misplaced self important nonsense slowly drivelled down the screen, like poisoned honey ... I is a fitting inditement of overmoney'd trash sinking in ignorance and determined inability to interact with the real world, though it is supposed to be the opposite... A huge misfire that can hardly be seen as a comedy on decadent cinema ... Don't misunderstand me ... I'm not heavy left winger ... But Visconti was an aristocrat that had enormous backing, and made some good films, but was never a particularly great director... In the end it all hung on the budget ... And this is the epitome of that sort of film of the time ... The Italians had the best film making talent in the world at that time and made some of the best, most inventive and entertaining cinema ... But this stagnant epic of self indulgence isn't one of them ... Having said that, Bogarde is perfect in his role and the whole cast is very good

I have seen this brilliant film more than five times, and l have never seen a more beautiful film made for the screen in any country; every frame of this film is like a magical painting, to savor, and to see again and again. The acting by Dirk Borgard reached his peak here in 'Death in Venice', Silvana Mangano has never been more elegant. The Music by Mahler is haunting. This film is poetic master piece, it is the most beautiful work of Luchino Visconti's direction that take's you for a ride in History, and place, as no other film has ever done; right now, as l write this, l want to see it again. The young Swedish actor, Bjorn Anderson, is like a mystical painting of an innocent individual, and only a boy, he is a danger to a cultivated man of a certain age; well performed by the young actor. The scenes of the degradation of the elder professor played so brilliantly by Dirk Bogard, is so good, it is painful to see this can happen to a man of letters, l recommend this film on every level.,C.J.Blanda

Some others here have written so eloquently and fully about this film's many virtues that I see no point in saying more about them. I shall instead say why I find it not quite flawless, but first I shall underline my appreciation of it by observing I love this film despite being intensely bored by some acclaimed films with little dialogue or action. Mostly I think this must come down to the film being such a rich visual treat, but hearing that some find it boring despite that, I wonder if this might not be a rare case where it is a great advantage to have read the novella first, as I did, for Mann's description of Aschenbach's developing and conflicting emotions is absolutely masterful. Perhaps this helps one feel as Aschenbach feels more than one could just from Bogarde's excellent acting.Visconti allowed himself more than two hours to bring to life a very short novel. There was thus none of the usual necessity to cut any of the novel, and since the latter is a masterpiece, every reason to be faithful to it. Nothing that matters has been cut and the film is generally faithful. Nevertheless, its only slight flaws come from being not faithful enough.The main change in the story is that Aschenbach is changed from a writer to a musician. The reasons are understandable and I don't think it matters much except that Visconti made it the basis for a series of flashbacks in which Aschenbach has slightly corny debates about the purpose of musical creation. I find these tiresome distractions.A lesser flaw for me is the choice of 16-year-old Björn Andrésen to play 14-year-old Tadzio. I realise from the numerous superlative remarks made about his beauty that most will disagree with me on this. I agree with others it was critical to the film's success that Tadzio's actor be beautiful and I can appreciate Andrésen's beauty enough to understand how Visconti's choice succeeded. Though personally I find him too pallid (and his hair too '70s for an otherwise wonderfully authentic depiction of 1911), my objection is not that he was not beautiful enough, but that it would have been easy and better to find an equally beautiful 14-year-old to play the role. There is quite a difference between boys of 14 and 16 and Mann had his reasons for depicting Tadzio as looking 14. Andrésen's rather feminine appearance for his age is a poor substitute for the more natural androgyny of 14. I think Mann's choice of 14 was intended both for the broad appeal of this quality and in considered juxtaposition to Aschenbach's age: the one near the beginning of his romantic sensibility while the other was at its end. Much to his credit, Visconti did set out to find a younger boy, so he was not making the ignoble concession to social correctness other directors have made under similar circumstances, and I would not mention it if the film was not otherwise so nearly perfect.As many appear still to be unaware of it, it may be interesting to mention that Death in Venice is partly a true story. Mann having already decided to write a story about a great writer who succumbs to passion for a youngster and to base the writer physically on the recently deceased composer Mahler, the rest of the story fell into place in detail when he arrived in Venice and promptly fell in love with a boy; in his own words, "nothing was invented." Gilbert Adair wrote a book on this called The Real Tadzio, exploring also the life of Wladyslaw Moes, who claimed to be the real boy (which I doubt for reasons I have explained in a review of it).Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander's Choice, a story of similar but requited love, www.amazon.com/dp/1481222112