Music Lovers Reviews

• Bravura Filmmaking, Great Performances

  
  By A223RY5K49US1Z on 2004-06-25
  This is probably Ken Russell's best film after "Women In Love." It is truly unfortunate that only a pan-and-scan video is available; the brilliant opening "Winter Carnival" sequence, which introduces all the main characters - AND establishes their relationships, without a word of dialogue! - is particularly damaged by the cropped aspect ratio. Chamberlain was never better, and still in his physical prime, and Jackson is briliant as always. This is worth the price just for the drunken honeymoon train-ride scene. Why in God's name this isn't on DVD is beyond me- Chamberlain's fans alone would put this one in the black! Hellooo MGM, WB or whoever owns this title now, we're waiting for a widescreen transfer!
  
  

• Not a masterpiece, but certainly an excellent film

  
  By on 2000-04-17
  No film critics seem to like THE MUSIC LOVERS, and Cinebook even scored this film 'zero', claiming that this film should be avoided by all 'music lovers'. The film's focus on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has always been considered inappropriate. While Cinebook scored 5 stars to AMADEUS which places emphasis on Mozart's impudent and vulgar character, I think it should be fairer to this film. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not up to Ken Russell's other masterpieces like WOMEN IN LOVE, but in terms of film-making, this is a marvellous film. In the film's opening, Tchaikovsky (Richard Chamberlain), playing wildly with his sleigh, has a brief encounter with Antonina Milyukova (Glenda Jackson), later his wife. This opening is simply as witty as David Lean's DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, where Omar Sharif has a brief encounter with Julie Christie on a tram in the beginning, not realizing at that time that this is the woman who will become part of his life. Indeed, this is how THE MUSIC LOVERS brings these two important characters together, Nina attending Tchaikovsky's concert, imagining herself having a good time with the soldier she loves, who later turns out to be an abuser. In Nina's imagination and with the 2nd symphony as the background music, Tchaikovsky shoot the soldier dead in a duel for Nina, and the two embrace. Audience will learn that this is Tchaikovsky's fantasy too, resulting in their marriage, which soon becomes disastrous. Throughout the film, Tchaikovsky's music is combined with perfect editing. His 6th symphony is used in the scene on a train, where Nina gets drunk and takes off all her clothes while Tchaikovsky feels sick as he sees Nina's breasts and vagina. The montage here alternating between Tchaikovsky's face of agony and Nina's body is simply perfect. Symbolism is also the key to success for this film. In the house of Madame von Meck, Tchaikovsky's secret subsidizer, fireworks form Tchaikovsky's face, and this is when Madame von Meck finds out about his homosexuality. The fireworks become dimmer and dimmer, signifying the end of their relationship. Now he has to compose without subsidy, and this comes the climax of the film, the use of 1812 Overture, in which we watch Tchaikovsky's fantasy of getting rid of all the people in his life, the canons being used to blow off their heads one by one, again done through the best montage ever. THE MUSIC LOVERS is not at all faithful to Tchaikovsky's life, but which biographic film is? Even LUST FOR LIFE has received the same criticism. When you watch THE MUSIC LOVERS, I think you should be looking for more than just the story itself. Anyway, I have read about Tchaikovsky in encyclopaedia, and I don't find THE MUSIC LOVERS that untrue. The film is not one of Ken Russell's masterpieces, but certainly one of his most stylish. Also, I am convinced that a first-class actress like Glenda Jackson, who won an Oscar just a year before, in WOMEN IN LOVE, would not have agreed to act in a film which she believed to have a bad script. She really sacrificed a lot for this film. Besides showing her breasts and vagina, she even cut almost all her hair for the asylum scene by the end of the film, and this is unquestionably Glenda Jackson in her ugliest. I think such sacrifice should have at least earned her an Oscar nomination, but of course, she was already nominated for another film, SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY, that very same year.
  
  

• Tchaikovsky's Genuis Laid Bare

  
  By A1E15WYG9C47X1 on 2004-02-18
  Ken Russell is one of the most underrated directors in cinema, and although his later output does not reflect the great potential he possesses, it is his earlier films that showcased his true talents in their unique and controversial style.
  Russell was instrumental, along with directors like Lindsay Anderson and Nic Roeg,in giving British cinema its own more subtle version of 'nouvelle vague' in the early 70s.
  His great passion for literature and classical music was a constant source of inspiration,from his adaptation of D.H Lawrence's 'Women in Love' his most acclaimed film to date, to his biographies of Elgar,Liszt, Mahler and Tchaikovsky.
  The British film establishment along with almost all critics liked nothing better than to dismiss Russell and his films as pompous and over indulgent.Micheal Winner has always had his share of these snide reviews and remarks, but although he is a remarkable socialite and bon vivant, his direction talents can not be compared to Russell's at all ,thus making the cold shoulder the latter received totally unjustified.
  Music Lovers, was one of the first films I ever saw, and it was largely responsible for two main developments in my life,
  my love and appreciation of classical music on one hand, and a passion for cinema that remains as strong and vibrant to this day on the other.
  It is a biography of this greatest of composers,Tchaikovsky, like nothing you are likely to see..Amadeus was majestic and grand..Beethoven's Immortal Beloved was too polished...Russell in Music Lovers gives us a biography that is troubled, anxious, raw and unashamedly personal.
  The crazy camera movements, the use of music both as part of the plot and as a background, the emphasis on an aspect of the great composer's life rarely written about or known:
  Russell in Music Lovers was able to show the viewers the human with his failings, successes and indulgences that were behind the creative genius, and the agony, despair as well as joy behind the music.
  Critics have slammed the film as an bombastic emphasis on Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, but they did miss the point totally..for I believe Russell was not trying to talk about the composer's sexual orientation, rather more about the demons that haunted him and the confusions and anxiousness that followed him throughout his life, his loves, disappointments, and friendships and from which many masterpieces came to life.
  I loved the fact how cleverly Russell uses the music to enhance the drama and the mood of the his film: in a way the music of Tchaikovsky speaks in itself the story of its composer..this Russell I believe understood very well and used it to his benefit.And of course it is safe to say that Richard Chamberlain as the Russian composer gave his best performance to date, while actress turned politician Glenda Jackson who worked with Russell on Women In love,is one of the best actresses in the world, in the Rampling-Dench-Redgrave league, and had she not chosen a different career, I am certain she would have delighted cinema lovers with many more great performances.
  The sad fact that Music Lovers is not yet released on DVD just confirms how underrated that great director is. At a time when really awful films get a two disc releases with tons of extras, classic films such as Music Lovers, remain out of stock and out of sight to cinema lovers everywhere to be seen again or rediscovered. It is time to give this film a proper release, and its director the recognition that he truly deserves.
  
  

• One of the best 100 movies of all time

  
  By on 2001-07-25
  An average rating of just 3 stars for Ken Russell's cinematic masterpiece? Scandalous! From beginning to end, this film is an extravaganza of visual delights and narrative verve, as rich and dramatic as Tchaikovsky's music. Every performance is effective, Melvyn Bragg's screenplay is pacy, intelligent and witty. The Music Lovers is quite simply a tour de force, a must-see movie. [....]
  
  

• Music Lovers

  
  By A2XVQV8DSSIUCC on 2005-01-30
  As a broke college student, I fondly remember my piano teacher giving me $2 to go see a movie she said, "You MUST see it! And tonight is the last night it's showing!"
  So I did go.
  Thirty-five years later, this movie still haunts my memory.
  I love PIT's music and the movie helped me understand how his music could be filled with such power and passion.
  Please, oh please, get this movie in WS DVD!!!!
  
  
• Over-the-top filmmaking at its best
  By AUWC8UXKI5XC3 on 1999-11-04
  A wonderful film. It's a mistake to criticize the overblown style. Russell was directing in the style of the MUSIC. The acting is intended to be as coarse and overwrought as Tchaikovsky's music, which is featured in a masterful way. Some of the video-to-music editing is incredible. Admittedly, the film does eventually go over-the-top when Glenda Jackson goes mad, but the film makes a great effect.
  
  
• I expect dvd version release
  By A3LPRG9C8FN6WX on 2005-02-22
  This is the most marvelous musical cinema I`ve ever seen. Of course,this is the russell`s best.I expect DVD version release for a long time. Why doesn`t the studio determine to release?Let`s release it during he`s fine.
  
  
• Why, oh why.....
  By A22VEUXIEVKMJA on 2006-12-09
  is this film not on DVD? And, for the record, what about The Devils? Ken Russell was the most courageous and daring film-maker of his or any generation. His films were, and still are, waaay ahead of their time. There's no way anyone would touch that subject matter today. In an industry filled with formulaic scripts and passionless, bland, Winona Ryder-esque acting, his films were the jewel in the crown, the needle in the haystack. We desperately need more writers/directors/producers with his uncompromising vision and storytelling talent.
  
  
• Fabulous Cinema!
  By on 1998-12-04
  If you want to surprise someone, including yourself, you should watch this film.It's simply yet another masterpiece by Ken Russell which has been kept away from the public. Richard Chamberlain in his best roll ever!
  
  
• Visually striking, although a bit bizarre in places
  By on 1998-12-04
  You shouldn't expect a straightforward, orthodox approach from director Ken Russell. The imagery is quite striking, and the combination of images with music (conducted by Andre Previn)is captivating. Released in the 70's, this was one of the first mainstream films to deal with the homosexuality of a historical character. Based partly on the correspondence between the composer and his patron, the plot does become speculative and a bit sensational. Some of the sexual imagery is quite bizarre. Richard Chamberlain is handsome and brooding (he had recently portrayed Lord Byron); Glenda Jackson goes mad with style. For adults or very mature teenagers.
  
  
• A Poor Movie on Tchaikovsky's Life.
  By on 2001-04-08
  This movie is boring. The director seems more interested in how he can visually direct a scene than he is in Tchaikovsky. Some of the director's scenes are visually fast, or they show nudity with violence. I don't mind some violence and nudity in film. But, I watched this movie because I was interested in Tchaikovsky and nothing else. Some of the scenes might be taken from incidents in Tchaikovsky's life, but the incident is changed and false in the movie. Naturally, people who have no knowledge of Tchaikovsky's life will not know that the movie is not following factual information.

  I know the movie came out in 1971, and it's now 2001. In the past 10 years, I have read many things on Tchaikovsky (latest books, etc.). There is one book,"Tchaikovsky: Quest for the Inner Man", and it does give a lot of information. It is this information that bothers me because it's not commented on or addressed by its author Alexander Poznansky.

  We know that Tchaikovsky lived a homosexual lifestyle, but why? I want to know why he chose that lifestyle, but truthfully even if this means unsympathetically. Tchaikovsky was extremely sensitive and was afraid of intimacy. He was very shy, and did not want to loose too much control. I feel he needed a lot of freedom in his life. Women, to Tchaikovsky, meant loss of control and freedom. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX! I think, for Tchaikovsky, he could only have physical relations with someone whom he felt wanted what he wanted. Tchaikovsky was very uncomfortable around women. His mother and any other female image from his growing up is the reason for this.

  I don't believe Tchaikovsky's homosexuality was observed and learned due to his personality. To Tchaikovsky, women only had sex to gain money or children and not for pleasure. Tchaikovsky was a very physical person, and I think he was curious and interested in women. But, Tchaikovsky just kept playing with the other boys. After all, he was a man, and he knew that men greatly enjoyed sex. Tchaikovsky, I think, might have stayed in this adolescent phase. For him, it was psychologically very difficult to get rid of any childhood memories or feelings regarding women and men. I don't think Tchaikovsky was born homosexual, but he was born with a certain sensitive personality.

  He did not want to be married or committed to anyone. He even said that he wasn't sure if he ever loved anyone, and that also goes for the men he knew.

  Tchaikovsky even said to his homosexual brother Modest,"... that women can give you pleasure, but it's difficult for me to express this..." Tchaikovsky did not want to be a husband to Antonina, this is true. But, what did he mean when he said "husband"? Was it the sex, or were there other reasons why Tchaikovsky did not want to be a husband to anyone. What did Tchaikovsky observe between his parents?

  Also, Tchaikovsky never really explained his "inclinations". Did Tchaikovsky's homosexuality stem from other things? Was Tchaikovsky too selfish or self-centered regarding his freedom or sense of control? Was he afraid that with a woman he might have to compromise too much for them? And if so, where does his thinking come from justified or not?

  Tchaikovsky said that he loved his mom in a sick way, but what did he mean? Why did he wish to keep his distance, and not get intimately involved with someone? What were Tchaikovsky's predjudices as he called them, and why did his upbringing make such an impression?

  Anyway and how, the book, Q for the I M leaves me hanging. This movie, the M L, does not delve into the psychology of the man. Trying to figure out Tchaikovsky is much more fun than just making wild and dramatic scenes for people to observe.

  So, I did not like this movie because it gave me nothing. Although, I agree that Tchaikovsky lived a self-centered life, if the movie tried to portray that. I really wish some director would make a new movie on Tchaikovsky. Let's try it again, and make it interesting!
  
  

• THIS MOVIE CHANGED MY LIFE
  By A24AMON5Q2AIPO on 2004-10-20
  I first saw this movie back in the early 70s, when I was still a young, dumb, nieve hippy chick listening only to rock n roll. A roommate of mine was into Classical music, and took me to see this. It brought the music to life, gave me an insight into the torment of the composer and what motivated him to write his music. I then and there dropped out of the hippy scene and enrolled in college to major in Classical music. I actually haven't seen the movie since, and am purchasing the video to refresh my memory. Still, it remains one of my all-time favorites. I can't proclaim to be all and know all about the nuances of movies, directors, etc. But I do know what inspired me, educated and entertained, and opened my eyes to a whole other world out there. I recommend the movie, obviously.
  
  
• Not quite as soothing as "Swan Lake"!
  By A2FEJIORC1MBG3 on 2000-11-13
  As you plunge headlong into ANY Ken Russell film, know this: It's strictly a "love 'em or hate 'em" scenario. If you already hate Ken Russell's, shall we say-- unique aesthetic, you'll find this movie repulsive, offensive and unredeemable. However, if you are open to Russell's cinematic approach, you will find this film at turns outrageously hilarious, exhilarating and quite the sensual feast. "The Music Lovers" is one of Russell's most visually beautiful efforts, at times recalling Stanley Kubrick's painterly "Barry Lyndon". There is nothing as genteel about the script or characterizations, however! Richard Chamberlain and Glenda Jackson both give their most fearless performances portraying the "Sid and Nancy" of the classical composer era. Not only does Russell make history "come alive", he reaches out of the screen and gives you a Three Stooges eye poke with his baton for good measure! Jolly good fun for open minds, classical music snobs need not apply.
  
  
• Fantastic!
  By A31WYKJN8GL8OV on 2003-03-12
  I must say this is about the best movie I saw that I never knew that it existed. The whole thing is a masterpeice from beginning to end. Never a dull 5 minutes and always stays interesting. Perhaps the best "under-the-influence" movie ever made! Can't wait for the DVD release! *crosses fingers*
  
  
• NAZTROVJA!!!
  By A14NYWSISU95HA on 2006-01-26
  That is really a somewhat americanization of my polish/baltic heritage...'to your good health'! Tip back your head and swallow down a nice fat shot of (w)vodka as you begin to drink in the absolute wonder of this mind blowing ride in Ken Russell's vision! I too,as so many others have said, am at a total loss as to why this has not yet made it to dvd! I have a pirated copy I taped from (I think it was either Cinemax or HBO) and am lucky I caught at least that! The tape is sealed in airtight plastic as are a few other gems I happened by that I'm also waiting for on dvd. DO NOT MISS!
  
  
• Filmmaking of the highest order: Ken Russell's Tchaikowsky--Genius recognizing genius!
  By ATXL536YX71TR on 2007-06-30
  Peter Tchaikowsky (1840-1893) is arguably Russia's greatest composer/pianist/conductor.His life was filled with heartache,trauma,emotional instability,near madness,perfectionism and most of all the inability or unwillingness to accept his homosexual nature. His music IS all about emotion. His works triumphantly and tragically are mirror images of his life, and therefore to understand his life IS to understand his work. Tchaikowsky always searched for love. Upon the unsettling death of his mother from cholera when he was but a child,Tchaikowsky began a decent into melancholy and desperation that would remain and worsen for the rest of his life.Documents reveal his "incestuous affair" with his sister Sasha, his hasty/manic marriage to an absolute "loon" that was disastrous for both of them,an unsuccessful "suicide" attempt, a brother content to ride on Tchaikowsky's coattails for gain and comfort, and a long standing homosexual relationship with one Count Anton Chilusky in a time when to be homosexual was complete ruination. Through this all, one wealthy widow, Nadia Von Meck, insisted on being his benefactress so that he could devote all of his time to composition "for her pleasure." He rose from the bourgeois class. He even received a stipend for life from Czar Alexander.He died tragically and, as later documents uncovered eight years after this film was made revealed, from something far more sinister and disturbing.
  
  Every bit of this is compelling enough for a film of grand scale, but how to capture the torture and immensity of it all is totally another thing. Ken Russell, as only Ken Russell could do, DID IT, and boy-oh-boy with what flare!!! Ken Russell tells Tchaikowsky's "bi-polar" and woefully
  lamentable struggles by crafting a jolting collage of emotionally beguiling images tied expertly to the composer's music (Evgeny Onegin,The 5th and 6th Symphonies, 1812 Overture and Swan Lake Ballet) in order to ignite the screen in sound,color,pain,euphoria,disgust,triumph and despair.We feel every ounce of pathos; we are repelled by the sight of his wife's bare breasts as she tries to seduce her impotent husband; we are wooed into the forbidden world of his longing for his married sister Sasha;we are repulsed by Madame Von Meck's "orgasmic" reactions to Tchaikowsky's music;we are disgusted at Peter's "ne'er-do-well" brother Modeste in his attempt to rise along with Peter's fame,but not to share Peter's struggles and woes; and we are troubled by the spurn that Count Chiluvsky feels and his manipulative ways to convince Peter to come to terms with his own nature.In fact, everyone WANTS And needs Peter Tchaikowsky AND HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO WANT OR, NEED THEM!This is the true pain that cries out in Tchaikowsky's compositions and Ken Russell expertly makes us feel and comprehend each raw emotion -almost exhaustingly so!!! Though I try to express my opinions on this film, words,even though I have to use alot of them,STILL ARE TOTALLY INADEQUATE to express the magnitude and depth of this masterpiece!!!
  
  The sheer breadth of what actors Richard Chamberlain and Glenda Jackson produce on screen as Tchaikowsky and his wife Antonina is almost beyond any human comprehension. They must have been totally spent after this film. Rarely is SO much emotion displayed in all of it's ugly rawness.Russell brings out everything that his actors have in order to tell this story so vividly. There is NOT ONE restrained performance in this film. It is an all-out blow-out that brings standing ovations and accolades to all involved.
  
  
  Andre Previn conducts the London Symphony orchestra. The sound is crystal clear and booming.Chamberlain is a pianist himself, so the "finger syncs" are perfection!( As a musician,myself, this is always of critical importance!)
  
  One DOES NOT need to know ANYTHING about Peter Tchaikowsky to "get" this film. To know his life and his music DOES though only enhance all of the nuances that Russell so accurately researched. In fact, this film is SO multi-layered that even over the 37 years since I first saw it there is always something more and something deeper that I understand and see. This is a film to be viewed over and over again for it's story,concept,execution,style and acting. Like Tchaikowsky himself, Ken Russell is a filmmaker's filmmaker. In this film, GENIUS RECOGNIZES GENIUS!!! The viewer is laid emotionally prostrate.
  
  Andre Previn's TCHAIKOWSKY: THE STORY OF THE SYMPHONY is an outstanding documentarian approach to Tchaikowsky's life and artistry.Previn is an expert on Tchaikowsky and is well respected for his knowledge and interpretation of The Russian Master.
  
  
  Other companion films that are at the top of their genre concerning classical composers are Ken Russell's MAHLER (Gustav Mahler),BRIDE OF THE WIND (Alma Mahler), AMADEUS (Mozart), IMMORTAL BELOVED (Beethoven), VOICES FROM A LOCKED ROOM (Peter Warlock), SPRING SYMPHONY (Clara and Robert Schumann), ALL THE MORNINGS OF THE WORLD (Colombe and Marais) and to a lesser degree CHOPIN:A DESIRE FOR LOVE (Chopin) and IMPROMPTU (Chopin and Liszt).
  
  Films that discuss intelligently the plight and struggle of homosexuality would be MAURICE, TOTAL ECLIPSE and LOVE IS THE DEVIL.
  
  For skillfully interpreted films that display piano virtuosity I recommend highly THE COMPETITION and SHINE.
  
  
• Acceptable for the great music, not the misinformed history
  By A2T049UQONS0OY on 2007-08-04
  If you watch 1970's "Music Lovers", Ken Russell's badly misinformed portrait of the life of Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky, you may think people were as open about homosexuality in the 1870s and they were starting to become in the 1970s. Europeans have always been more open and accepting of lifestyle than Americans, but this film treatment still borders on the ridiculous.
  
  The subject of Russell's dissertation, Tchaikovsky, was one of the half-dozen greatest classical music composers in history. He remains the greatest architect of ballet among all composers with "Swan Lake" -- some scenes of which are delightfully reenacted in this film -- holding steadfast to its reputation as the greatest of all ballet. Tchaikovsky also wrote six symphonies, three piano concertos, three operas that remain in the standard repertory, a violin concerto and the late romantic era's most endearing and beloved orchestral music on subjects ranging from Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet, Francesa da Rimini) to travelogue (Capriccio Italian) to history (1812 Overture, March Slav).
  
  Tchaikovsky, who died age 53 after composing his dynamic and depressing Symphony No. 6, was homosexual and was tormented by his homosexuality, which is the aspect of his life this film exploits. A remarkable early scene, where actor Ricahrd Chamberlain, playing Tchaikovsky, premieres his magnificent Piano Concerto No. 1 to the conservatory, is followed almost immediately by a scene of the composer in bed with a boyfriend. This is the exploitative nature of the film, which merges sensationalism with incorrect history to give viewers an incorrect thumbprint of the composer.
  
  Just as "Amadeus" did not always accurately reflect Mozart and the abominable "Immortal Beloved" was essentially 100 percent wrong in its portrayal of Ludwig van Beethoven, so too does "Music Lovers" poorly portray the life and times of Tchaikovsy. However, the two musical scenes provide insight for novices into the range of expression the composer offered and the piano concerto's first movement is played in its entirety.
  
  Fortunately, two subsequent films about Beethoven -- "Eroica: The Day That Changed Music" and "Copying Beethoven" -- are both somewhat frivolous but cast the composer in better film treatment than the earlier travesty. In addition, the PBS film "Impromptu" was very accurate in its depiction of composer Fredric Chopin and Franz Liszt, writer George Sand and French revolutionary artist Eugene Delacroix.
  
  For this reason, there is hope that one day Tchaikovsky will be represented on the silver screen more appropriatley. Until that day arrives, this is it. Enjoy the music but beware the hype and sexual manipulation.
  
  
• This is not a movie about Tchaikovsky
  By A3IOIIS7VTMK8K on 2003-02-27
  The movie it self is not that bad, but the person they portrait is not P.I Tchaikovsky. I've read biographies, diary, and letters of Tchaikovsky, the way the main character behaved in the movie sounded nothing like Pyotr himself. Other than the correct names, almost all other information are false. If you want to see a movie of a person who's almost mentally insane, this is probably the movie for you, but if you want to know who is Pyotr Tchaikovsky, look no further than his own words.
  
  
• CONTINUOUS EMASCULATION .....a slight correction please.
  By on 2001-06-21
  Whoops!

  So sorry - I meant to call this movie a "large, calorie filled English TRIFLE" - there's obviously no such thing as an English Triple [unless it's "Sunday, Bloody Sunday"].

  also

  "Glenda Jackson is one of the most gifted acresses of the 20th Century - no one has [not had] ever reached her zenith" Apology to Ms. Jackson - she's still # 1.

  blame it on the tri-focals.

  Sorry again.
  
  

• Watch and enjoy !
  By A2ULDPKGI2N0Y on 2004-05-11
  When is this little gem* going to come out on DVD ?

  *for the squared minant.
  
  

• Chopin: Desire For Love
• Women in Love
• Immortal Beloved
• Tchaikovsky
• Mahler