Lisztomania (1975)

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

An Exercise In Nonsense

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Pure escapism! This film is fantastic. It contains farce, humour, nudity and crudity along with lots of laughs and many cringes. It's ludicrous, hilarious and colourful with great music and costumes. I like the music and also the paradox of some of the scenes. My daughter and I love it, and happy to watch it time and time again, but everyone we've loaned the video to can't get past the first 20 minutes, and think we are weird, so maybe we are off-the-wall like the film. I haven't seen the film Tommy and would like to do so now I've seen this. Don't watch Lisztomania if you are easily offended. Sit back, relax, take it all with a pinch of salt and you'll be grinning all night.

To many, this film is the stunning-proof that director Ken Russell never had it, and that idiocy and egotism were mistaken for genius. You could say mistaking idiocy and egotism for genius has been the appeal of rock music! Others might say that Russell is simply childish or immature, and that his films are the "masturbatory-fantasies" of an overgrown-adolescent. This belief is unfounded. Is this film over-indulgent? Yes it is, dear readers, very-much-so, because it is art, not entertainment. That-said, if you chuck any expectations, this is a funny film and allegory about the rise of pop-culture in the 19th Century. It draws parallels between Liszt's fame with the other generally-hollow spectacle known as "rock." This is great film-making, and it should be noted that it has similarities between itself and "Rocky Horror," and even "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," as they all examine and explore the relationships between sexuality and pop-culture in similar-areas. It really is true that women threw their underwear at Franz Liszt during his performances, and that he had many-many lovers--groupies.Lisztomania is an odd bridge-between "classic" rock and the emergent punk-movement of the time. The film can also be seen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive or rebellious at-all, but ultimately arch-conservative, and repressive. Amen. It's just a hilarious, wild-romp that will make your guests extremely nervous, which films should do. Movies should challenge people to think and reflect--at-least occasionally. Ironically (or maybe-not!), Mr. Russell had contracted Malcolm MacLaren and Vivienne Westwood to design the S&M-costumes for his film, "Mahler." It should also-be-noted that "Liszt-o-Mania" was released exactly the same year that MacLaren's shop "SEX" opened on King's Row, the rest is as they say, is history. It couldn't be more camp, it has Little Nell in it.Basically-put, this is about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop-culture, and WHAT we generally-want from our "pop-idols" (sex, of-course). One could easily-say this film criticizes the absurd spectacle that rock had become by 1975, and we get this quite-often in the film. But this theme goes much-deeper, into the relationship-between artist and patron (once, just the aristocracy, now the mob is added). The sexuality is about mass-psychology, too, so Wilhelm Reich gets-his-due, and there is a plethora of Freudian-imagery. It is certainly a very-personal film for Russell, and probably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enrages so-many critics, but it should be noted that some of the absurdity and excess came from the producer of the film, not Mr. Russell. Ken Rusell enrages all the right-people, and that's what some film-making should be.God love this lapsed-Catholic, and God love his ways. A flawed part of his canon, but very watchable and educational. As Russell began his career doing documentaries and impressionistic-films on composers for the BBC, it makes-sense that this is considered one of his most heretical-works. He complains about the opening country-song in his autobiography 'Altered States', and there were other aspects of the production he didn't want in the film. It's interesting to note that the 1980s was the period of his purest-work, due mainly to a three-picture-deal with Vestron. The 1970s were actually a very mixed-bag for him, as Lisztomania attests. He isn't entirely-pleased with it, but had some fun with the material, and there it is. I think it's a hoot, which means it isn't on DVD.

After seeing this film one late night (and yes this film is best viewed late nite a la Rocky Horror Picture Show) I really thought it was cheesy and campy and therefore a treasure to some audiences. Barbarella, starring Jane Fonda in 1968 and the fore-mentioned Rocky Horror Picture Show of 1975 starring Barry Bostwick and Tim Curry were campy cult classics and this one is an addition to that repertoire. Ken Russell has done some good films, despite their use of bizarre imagery and cartoonish silliness- Mahler, Liar of the White Worm, The Devils and Tommy the musical. Lisztomania is at once a parody of film, using Rocky Horror Picture Show elements, and a fantasy of historical fiction. Franz Liszt, Richard Wagner and Cosima were all real people but in this film they exist as parody and as fictional characters akin to comic book characters. The theme seems to be the battle between good versus evil played out by two rival composers- Liszt and Wagner. In real life, these legendary composers were friends and found inspiration as colleagues. But in this comic book type of movie, Liszt (Roger Daltrev) fights the evil machinations of the Nazi vampire Richard Wagner bent on world domination. He creates a Frankenstein that resembles Hitler. It's up to Franz Liszt and friends to save the day by attacking him with their pipe organ spaceship. Lots of fun to watch. Other things to look for include a giant penis idol, a piano torture machine, Ringo Starr as the Pope and throughout the film is a rock musical style similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show. So if you liked that one, you'll like Lisztomania. Don't take it seriously. Not to be viewed by children.

To many, this film is the stunning-proof that Ken Russell neverhad it, that idiocy and egoism were mistaken for genius. Thisbelief is unfounded. Is this film over-indulgent? Yes it is, dearreaders, very-much-so, because it is art, not entertainment. That- said, if you chuck any-expectations, this is a funny film and allegory about the rise of pop-culture in the 19th Century, and the parallelswith the other generally-hollow spectacle known as "rock." This isgreat film-making, and it should be noted that it has similaritiesbetween itself and "Rocky Horror," and even "Hedwig," as they allexamine and explore the relationships between sexuality and pop- culture in similar-areas. It is also an odd bridge-between "classic"rock and the emergent punk-movement of the time. It can also beseen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive, orrebellious at-all, but ultimately "arch-conservative," and repressive.Ironically (or maybe-not!), Mr. Russell had contracted MalcolmMcCalren and Vivienne Westwood to design S&M-costumes forhis film, "Mahler." It should also-be-noted that "Listz-o-Mania" wasreleased exactly the same year that McClaren's shop "SEX"opened on King's Row, the rest is as they say... Basically-put, thisis about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop- culture, and WHAT we generally-want from our "pop-idols" (sex, of- course). One could easily-say this film criticizes the absurd- spectacle that rock had-become by 1975, and we get this quite- often in the film, but it goes much-deeper, into the relationship- between artist and patron. The sexuality is about mass- psychology, too, so we get-a-nod towards Wilhelm Reich, and lotsof Freud. It is certainly a very-personal film for Russell, andprobably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enragesso-many people who simply do-not get it... SO WHERE IS THE DVD, WARNER BROTHERS? WHERE IS THE UNCUT-VERSION OF "THE DEVILS?" WE REALLY WANT-IT, WE"RE OUT-HERE.