As all of you know, I've seldom backed away from being a contrarian when it comes to debating this Mahler stuff. The general consensus is that Ken Russell's "Mahler" is a bad movie. I looked at for the first time in years last week, and I couldn't agree less. I think it's brilliant. Further more, Henri De La Grange's final volume on Mahler is going to reinforce what I've suspected for many years; mainly this: Mahler and Alma made great strides in improving their relationship in their last year together (pretty much ever since his famous meeting with Freud). Of course, the movie is based on a half-truth in regards to Mahler's final train trip back to Vienna. In the movie, through a series flashbacks, fantasies, explanations, and honest bantering; Alma and Gustav resolve much of their differences. As a result, Alma chooses not to get off the train at St. Polten with "Max" (Gropius, I presume). "We won't be needing you, doctor; we're going to live forever!", proclaims the romantically and sexually victorious Mahler (to the end of M6/1). The real truth, of course, was that Mahler was too sick for such emotional and psychological wrestling. However, a fair amount of patching up had already happened in their final year - maybe even just the last six months - together in New York. I'll be curious as to what all De La Grange has dug up.
The usual viewpoint is that Alma couldn't wait for Mahler to die so that she could begin her relationship with Gropius in earnest - not to mention her many notorious affairs. The truth is more complicated than that. Even when Alma was having her torrid affair with Oscar Kokoshka - the expressiont painter of whom many have said was Alma's greatest love - Alma kept turning back to the bust of Mahler (yuuuck!). She frequently rubbed it in Kokoschka's face, what a truly great man Mahler had really been. It's little wonder that he finally chose to go off to the war. As payback for his torment, Kokoschka eventually constructed the life-size, anatomically correct Alma doll, which basically got raped and pillaged at a drunken poolside party in Prague (well after WWI). Not long after that, Kokoschka caved-in to becoming a landscape painter and university teacher. There's a lesson on life there for punk rockers and other so-called revolutionaries.
Perhaps best of all, is just the way K.R. put Mahlerian excerpts together with images and lessons on nature. I particularly like the scene where the young Mahler is crouching near the forest floor; when suddenly - accompanied by the start of the coda to M3/3 (the scherzo) - a white steed appears. Frightened at first - as the steed bucks ever so high in the air - the young Mahler mounts the magic horse and races victoriously through the forest. At the sharp cut-off that ends the movement, we're suddently brought back to the silhouette of Mahler on the train; his strained forehead being met by his extended arm and taut hand (as well as the monotonous "clickity-clack" of the railroad tracks).
I also like it that K.R.'s "Mahler" does't back away from the conversion controvery either: Mahler's conversion to Catholicism (can be spelled "Catholocism" as well - sorry, but it can!). Yes, it's true that the notorious but funny scenes with Cosima Wagner, daughter of Franz Liszt, are completely over the top. I love it - I think it's hilarious, and it's also not far from the truth. Mahler HAD to convert to Catholocism in order to land the Vienna gig. Mahler HAD to have Cosima intervene in the process, and Cosima was a far bigger anti-semite than Richard Wagner ever was. Why not lighten up and just have a laugh over that fact? Overall, I think it's a brilliant film - one that I'll enjoy seeing over and over again.
Topic: Why I think Ken Russell's "Mahler" is brilliant (Read 9203 times)