a parable. or a confession. in fact, only a Visconti. because , like many of his film, Ludwig presents the fall of a world. its solitude, its errors. its illusions, fights and manner to discover the reality exploring the soul's questions. each scenes compose a parable. not exactly about a Bavarian king but about the need of director to define a trilogy from Ludwig is the last part. and the success of exercise has two remarkable pillars : Helmuth Berger and Romy Schneider. Empress Sissi is the same from the pink romantic films who defines the youth of Schneider. her experiences are different. and that is the basic nuances who transforms Ludwig in a brilliant parable about power and about beauty.

Lasting for more than four hours, Luchino Visconti's "Ludwig" is an exhausting and unrelentingly gloomy film on the life of Bavarian king Ludwig II "the Mad." There is interesting subject matter to work with here. Ludwig's mania for Wagnerian operas and then castles resulted in him bankrupting his kingdom. Then he was forced to abdicate and seek treatment in an insane asylum, where he died along with his psychiatrist under mysterious circumstances. Nevertheless, Visconti succeeds in making the life of Ludwig II (Helmut Berger) boring. A big reason for the film's problems are the overly long and slow-moving scenes of Ludwig II's coronation, enigmatic conversations with Elizabeth of Austria (Romy Schneider), Richard Wagner and his operas, the king's relationships with attractive males, and so on - all meticulously detailed. You would be forgiven for thinking, as I did, that these overly long scenes were somehow important, because otherwise what is the point of dedicating four hours to figuring out what is going on in this movie. Yet the film's details just accumulate rather than amount to any payoff. In fact, a movie- goer can arrive late, miss the scenes with the coronation and Elizabeth of Austria, and still get as much out of this movie as the person who sat in his seat for four hours. These scenes do not contribute to the plot and are only related in so far as they happen in the life of Ludwig. "Ludwig" also has scenes which seem unnecessary to the plot. Was it necessary to show that many Wagnerian operas or to show Wagner performing music for his mistress, Cosima? Did we really need to know that Bavaria lost the war to Prussia, when Visconti does not seem that interested in explaining what consequences this defeat had for Ludwig or Bavaria? Lastly, there is also something very self- indulgent about this depiction of Ludwig's life. Ludwig's obsession with building opera houses and then castles must have brought considerable hardship to his own people, but this theme is never explored. Instead, Visconti seems content to film Ludwig living in complete isolation of his people and getting swindled by favourites. The message of the film does not seem to be that Ludwig impoverished his people to satisfy his own obsessions (even though such a message would be consistent with Visconti's Marxist beliefs), but rather that living in damp castles is a lonely and depressing experience. It's obvious that Visconti tried to generate some sympathy for Ludwig, but the problem is that the Bavarian king decided to make his own life miserable by indulging heavily in these obsessions in the first place. As a result, it becomes impossible to identify with Ludwig or any of the other characters in this film. Like other Visconti films, "Ludwig" also has truly beautiful visuals. Yet so what, when the the story was not interesting enough to justify this fantastic cinematography? There are few people who can film a coronation scene as well as Visconti could, but that does not change the fact that I do not want to watch a coronation that shows no sign of ever ending. There are few people who illustrate ostentatious luxury with the same meticulous detail as Visconti, but watching Ludwig gradually deteriorate emotionally and physically in gilded prisons (i.e. castles) of his own making is not my idea of entertainment. What this movie required were film makers willing to make the tough choices about which scenes to keep and which to let go of long before the screenplay went into production.

During our visits to Bavaria, we have visited one of his castles (hoping to see the others sometime but only managed to view them from a distance as yet), seen the spectacular stage musical that was put on at the special theatre made for it at Fussen, and I have read a fair bit about him, and I watched this movie enthralled. Ludwig II is a truly fascinating, tortured personality and played so magnificently by Helmut Berger who is so perfectly cast - I couldn't imagine a better performance than this nor a better movie about his life although as I don't understand much German, I haven't had the chance so far to see any other versions.No-one could ever forget, I think, their first sight of his "fairy tale" castle Neuschwanstein (the Bavarian Kinds were the Swan kings). This castle is well known over the world as the castle on which Disney's fairy tale castle logo is based. Inside it's said to be amazing. Ludwig inspires, I think, surprise, awe, admiration, and yet much pity and at times considerable annoyance. This highly artistic and yet emotionally troubled man was not fitted to be a King, much as his close relative and friend Empress Elizabeth of Austria was not entirely fitted to be an Empress and the same at times despairing suicidal tendencies and other problems disturbed them both. Both had difficult lives. Yet it's difficult to know if they would have been any happier as nonenties without the money and position to all too often do and spend exactly as they pleased. Ludwig showered Wagner with money, aiding Wagner for a while to produce some of his great work as the composer was often desperate for money. Is that a good way or a bad way to spend your populace's taxes - on someone who was not even Bavarian yet was a genius? Hard to say.It seems no-one knows for sure whether Ludwig eventually killed himself or was murdered. In the stage musical it is shown as suicide in an incredible scene when nearly all the stage is turned into a real lake into which Ludwig walks slowly to his drowning. At the time we saw this, my husband refused to believe it was really water but must be an illusion. Not so. The Making Of video showed the actor swimming away from the stage lake under water. I haven't been able to find a DVD recording of the show, a great shame, as it would make a fine duo with this superb movie.

The color of solitude. The taste of freedom. The fear. "Ludwig" is a new tale about Hamlet. A new story about power and an age of dreams and limits of ash. About madness and the rules of real life. About life like trip or form of search. Ludwig of Wittelsbach is not present in this movie. In fact, like others films, "Ludwig" is a Visconti's self-portrait. Same crisis and same answer, same cycle of hypocrisy and same morgue. Ludwig is a victim but not of his era, error or illness. He is the victim of desire, like every romantic hero or existentialistic character. The action is the shadow of Visconti-Berger relation, and form of self-recognition. The tall of a fall and a disillusion's map. A contour of any game and a sacrifice without value.