Valentino

 

 

Create your own review

I am not gonna talk about "Valentino"'s cinematic merits or Ken Russell's ones, for that matter. Previous reviewer has done a pretty good job on that. I'll just say that I own this movie and I watch it every so often. I enjoy it, because it is full of satirical images and it DOES take me back to the Hollywood of 20's. Of course, people should not consider it a real biographical movie about RV, but rather a huge satire with terrific costumes and wonderful cast. I must say that the film looses its edge half away thru; in the beginning you are taken by it, then it becomes more of a toy for Ken Russell himself. As for Nureyev's playing Valentino, I think that was THE INGENIOUS PART OF RUSSELL'S PLAN. Yes, it was Nureyev's first role in cinema (first and the only one, buy the way). Yes, he seems stiff at times, but I believe this was part of the idea: to "ham" it up a little in order to heighten the effects of constructed set (Hollywood of 20's). Anyone who saw Nureyev on stage/in ballet/ should have no doubts about his actor skills; he did not simply dance, he ACTED. Besides, for anyone who saw movies with Rudolpho Valentino (well, I did), com'on, how much "ham" is that, especially from today's perspective?.. NOW, think about it, Valentino and Nureyev: they had the same name, they were both dancers, they were both immigrants (suffering from not ever seeing their mothers again), they were both gay, they were both surepstars, etc. I think the similarities are uncanny! Russell took full advantage of them, by constucting a surrealistic plot, where you are not always sure whether you are watching Nureyev as Valentino, Nureyev as Nureyev, or even Valentino as Nureyev. That is possibly why Nureyev would want to play this role, even though he had not done any films before. ONE SCENE ESPECIALLY PROVES MY POINT ON THIS: right in the beginning we see young Valentino, who lived in NY then, is supposedly giving tango lessons to the great Nijinsky, who was also in NY at the same time with his troop ("Russian Seasons Ballet"). No such encounter ever happened in the real life, I am sure (Valentino was young and handsome small time jiggalo...Nijinksy's each move was monitored by Sergey Diagilev, troop's director and Nijinsky's pathologically jealous lover... Diagilev would have never allowed Nijinsky to see a handsome/ gay/Italian for private lessons or any such thing). So, how fanastic was it of Russell, to put two of the 20 century's greatest ballet dancers together in a marvellous tango? I just loved it: the idea itself and the scene! Anyway, if you watch this movie, you'll see it for yourselves. This movie is well-worth watching repeatedly.

Ken Russell's "Valentino" was released in 1977 to the condemnation of most of the critical populace as well as the Catholic Church.Most of this disapproval was due to an ignorance of Ken Russell's artistic method,his intentions,and the extreme nature of some of his work.Over twenty years later with baroque directors more common and sexual and violent imagery less outre, "Valentino" deseves to be recognized as the undeniably flawed yet vital work of art that it is. Influenced by "Citizen Kane",Valentino's narrative is presented in a series of flashbacks by the people who admired,pitied,despised and loved the silent screen superstar.Ken Russell weaves tragedy and satire together to criticize the absurdities and nightmares engendered by the pursuit of the American Dream.The film dissects the obverse and reverse of stardom with its mindless and volatile adulation on one side and jealous hatred and contempt on the other."Valentino" also depicts the ethnocentism and homophobia of the 1920's-and by implication,as in most of Ken Russell's films,depicts ours as well.The film's tone is mercurial and constantly challenges you to think about what is being depicted as you are affected by its power.It enthralls as it provokes. Yet the film is not without its flaws.Rudolph Nureyev in his first acting role displays charm,grace and sex appeal-but he is sometimes stiff and lacks emotional depth.The great actress Alla Nazimova is savaged (in a very funny performance by Leslie Caron)as a pretentious and vain phony.Natasha Rambova(a very beautiful Michelle Phillips)is depicted as a shrill,grasping shrew.The screenplay as written by Ken Russell and his co-scenarist sounds unduely influenced by films of the early 1930's(though this does give the film atmosphere,you sometimes feel as if you were watching an R-rated Lloyd Bacon picture). Yet the film's merits make it worth experiencing.One can mention its exquisite art direction and costumes,its tour de force cinematography by Peter Suschitsky.But its Ken Russell's direction of its many great setpieces -choreographed with great intensity that are the ultimate proof of its genius.Not every setpiece works-one involving an empty-headed starlet brought to orgasm through sheer fantasysing while going through the motions of having sex with Valentino falls flat.But others such as Valentino's revenge on Fatty Arbunkle or the Nijinsky photo session with Nazimova and Rambova are emblematic of Ken Russell's use of images rather than words to achieve poetic comedy.Much more disturbing are Rambova's seance turned nightmare as well as the jail sequence in which various lowlifes sexually taunt Valentino and force him to urinate on himself.It is one of the most horrifying scenes in film history. "Valentino's" faults(such as its occasional historical inaccuracies and the aforementioned depictions of Nazimova and Rambova)seem irrelevant when you begin to understand that Ken Russell's intentions were not to tell Valentino's life story but to explore satiric and tragic themes based on his and his contemporaries' lives.His method is similiar to Shakespeare's Macbeth.Macbeth's raison d'etre was to enact corruption through ambition.The biographical or "real" Macbeth is of no significance to the play.Ken Russell's method is the same.This is not to say that he willfully distorts history for distortion's sake-but that he presupposes his audience will have prior familiarity with his subjects and will be able to reference both his fidelities and his departures from fact. Is "Valentino" a great film?I think it is, despite its uneveness-though I don't think it is one of Ken Russell's best films.But other great works of English art such as "Women Beware Women","Paradise Lost" and "David Copperfield" are all admittedly uneven and hopefully one day "Valentino" will be judged upon its strengths and not weaknesses -as they are.

The is the one where Princess Margaret saw "Rudi Nudi" - for some or other reason it was selected as a Royal Performance!

Not really one of Ken's best, it's stil kinda worth seeing, if you get my drift! A fractured vision of Hollywood, circa "when it all began and when we had faces", i.e. the Silent Years, and granted Valentino was probably the first real male movie star, although today - it IS rather difficult to understand the attraction - was it the eyes? The close-up? [The other pre-Valentino male stars? Check out the make-up!]

BUT, back to this movie - it's a sad re-telling of Valentino's short life, emphasizing the menage [?] between Valentino, his ex-ballet-dancing wife, now Art director Natasha Rambova/Michelle Phillips [relax, she was a local gal, an heiress, not an import, eventually banned from the Paramount lot] and the now oddly neglected, but spectacular Alla Nazimova [Leslie Caron as a lesbian? Check out the dialogue between Caron and the newly widowed Mrs. Valentino - right over the casket! Mortice is not even rigor and the two are planning a new life! Intentionally funny??? Well, Nazimlova was bisexual, and a damn good business woman too - another Hollywood casualty. She was also Tennessee Williams Muse.]

The movie does go on and on - Nureyev is too exotic, but provides the necessary eye-candy. There are hints of Valentino's bisexuality - the "Pink Powerpuff" sequences, but we don't learn much about the man. Carol Kane shines as another vapid vamp. There's even boy-boy dancing - Valentino/Nijinsky episode in New York, pre-Hollywood. Valentine worked as a dance "escort" ["Roseland?"]. The tango sequences are good, but this Ken Russell is not too memorable - good as part of your Ken Russell collection it does not quite hold its own. Costumes and art direction ARE rather superior!

Better by faris the TV version with Franco Nero and Yvette Mimeiux - much stronger casting!

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 4 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

1.0 out of 5 stars Golden Turkey Award Nominee Par Excellance-:-(
Caught this lamentable, execrable, piece on TV last night-and I
can see why it BOMBED bigtime in theatrical release-1. continu-
ity stank, 2. Read more

Published on Feb 25 2004

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 4 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!