This film is terrible, it completely misses the point of the book, and destroys any of the philosophical discussion the book created. It's honestly just some not very well done scenes of a guy following a child around Venice. Unlike in the book there is no internal monologue describing why this man feels this way or why he is doing this. The few flashback scenes were pointless and the philosophy discussed in them isn't anything intellectual. A huge disservice to the beauty and tragedy of the novel. I can't believe the number of people raving over this film. It turns a book about beauty, idolization, decay, obsession, and aestheticism into a pretentious 2 hours of a creepy guy following s boy around.

Composer Gustave Aschenbach is sick with stress. He goes to a seaside resort only to obsess about a beautiful young boy who is on vacation with his family. The vacationers discover that a cholera outbreak in the nearby city of Venice has been kept from them.This is good controversial Italian art-house. It's a tale of desire but not simply a sexual desire. The boy often looks angelic. His beauty is ethereal as well as sexual. Gustave's struggle is palpable in the sweat of his brow. This is not a film of plot. Director Luchino Visconti incorporates a lot of classical music in a study of this man. The demeanor of his pale sickly haunted face is a story in itself.

In this adaptation of the Thomas Mann novel, avant-garde composer Gustave Aschenbach (loosely based on Gustav Mahler) travels to a Venetian seaside resort in search of repose after a period of artistic and personal stress. But he finds no peace there, for he soon develops a troubling attraction to an adolescent boy, Tadzio, on vacation with his family.What strikes me about this film is the odd coloration. Some have said it makes the film look like a moving painting. I can see that, but I also think it looks muted. A step up from Technicolor, but a far cry from other methods. I wish I knew more about cinematography so I could express the thought more clearly.There is a bit of a scandalous subplot, as it suggests pedophilia or something similar. Strange how many films (or books) have heroes (or protagonists) afflicted with this. What are we to make of them? Are they evil or just flawed? The cholera epidemic plays a major part in the story, and it is interesting that the film seems to be known less for that than the "romance" angle. Not many films have cholera in them, which seems odd considering its deadliness. Everyone in old movies seems to die from tuberculosis!

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