User Reviews

I read this story in the original in 1939 when I was an adolescent. I understood it only from the boy's point of view. It was a wonderful experience to see it at a time when my son was a grown man and I could understand the film from each individual's point of view. The makers of this film are to be congratulated for their sensitivity, and their tremendous skill for presenting this story written in a different social and historical context from their own. The acting of the entire cast was subtle and powerful. The mother's relationship with her son is beautifully realized. All in all, I highly recommend this film. I plan to buy it for my own collection.

A superb script is perhaps the best reason to see this movie, but it's a splendid film on all counts. I saw it during its original theatrical release and once since then, but it's the kind of movie that sticks in the memory.

Brandauer gives his usual splendid performance. The man has never given a bad one as far as I know, and this is one of his best. The camera loves him and you can read this character's thoughts from his eyes alone. The sometimes uneven Dunaway is just wonderful here, and still very beautiful when this was made. David Eberts, as her son, is also very fine and believable.

The atmosphere created by this movie will haunt you. Yes, I suppose it is an "art film," whatever that means. There are no car chases and the themes are very adult and provocative in the best sense. Photography and settings are beautiful. Give this a look, it will stick with you.

The several published criticisms linked by IMDB are all over the map about this movie, not only as to their reactions to the art-film mood (a negative reaction to which, although I can't say I really understand, one must admit clearly reflects many people's values and expectations in cinematic entertainment these days), but even as to Brandauer's acting, a craft about which one would think one could be objective.

Well, I'm here to say I liked it all. So art films like this give art films a bad name? And what Hollywood is now serving up as standard fare-- ever-louder explosions, flashier collisions, and interminable series of action scenes so frenetic as to make the whole idea of suspension of disbelief a moot issue-- doesn't give anything whatsoever a bad name? Sorry, beside that I'll be a sucker for woozy art films, if that's what they are, any day. We need a few more.

About a film like this, one is able to ponder, to wonder what might be implied, and to ask questions even about what might not have been implied.

So the acting is poor by giving the impression that the Baron and Mrs. Tuchman, even as they were becoming lovers, loathed each other? This is a real-life possibility, you know. To give just one example: suppose that I have such low self-esteem as to feel unattractive, even a freak, and to take it for granted that no one would take any initiative towards me. Then someone does. What might I feel? Perhaps I'd feel that the other person must be weird too, has a fetish for the kind of freak I am. Furthermore, since I am not worth loving, the other person cannot possibly want to love me, but wants something less worthy from me. Because I loathe myself, I must loathe anyone who gets close to me.

If there is a subtle loathing between these two characters in this film, it is not a flaw, because it is perfectly in order to ponder how or why that might be, beneath the surface: there are things beneath the surface. Not a lot of movies made today would support such a complicated sentiment. One critic, evidently, was too used to them.

Another point to ponder: what did Edmund tell his father? The usual assumption is that, although he intended to reveal his mother's unfaithfulness, at the last minute he drew back and concealed it. I'm not so sure about that. Everything indicates that Mr. Tuchman is a very wise and gentle man, with exceptional insight into the labyrinths of the human heart; and Edmund is a boy who expresses his feelings with a touching forthrightness and sincerity and who despises lying. Just maybe he told the truth, the whole truth: his mother was very lonely, so much that she was taken in and seduced by a very deceitful man, and the incident left her sorry and even more miserable than before. It seems to me that when the father met her again, he knew everything. Diplomat that he was, he realized then that his professional burdens had caused him to neglect his wife, and he was quietly going to make amends. "There is nothing more to say about this." Would such a man be unaware if his own son had just concocted a tissue of lies? It would be quite ironic if he, of all people, congratulated his son for becoming a man due to a successful cover-up. Or is he congratulating him for developing diplomacy: to know the truth but not necessarily to tell the truth in so many words. However it happened, Edmund's father knew and Edmund was the messenger. They had an understanding.

"To know all is to forgive all." Is this what the film suggests? And if so, is it true? These are the questions which perceptive critics should be debating.

One might ponder the echoes of World War I reverberating around the plot. The baron had been wounded by an American soldier. Edmund was an American. Edmund's father was an American. Edmund's mother was not. Perhaps revenge was part of his motives. I hasten to say that I caught no such overtones in Zweig's short story, and would expect none, because he was very much an internationalist. Perhaps we have a subtle innovation on the part of the moviemakers here, but it only increases the interest.

Finally, the baron's behavior towards Edmund, after developing such a blissful friendship with romantic suggestions, was so callous that it could not have done this boy, who was also lonely, any emotional good. And all this to chalk up one more casual female conquest. How much better a man might he have been were he truly interested in Edmund the way he at first appeared to be.

This film is about manhood, and a boy's (actually every boy's) journey to manhood. The scene in the dining room with the baron and the young boy explains it all. The baron recites Goethe's poem, "ErlKonig" and interprets it for the young boy-man. Schubert set this poem to music (ErlKonig, The Erl King). The poem is a dialog of a child, and his father who holds him close as they ride horseback toward their home. The child expresses fear and apprehension about what he sees on the journey. At the end of the poem, the "kind war tot" - "the child was dead" in the arms of his father. This movie is about the "death" of childhood, which must take place if a boy is to become a man. The film is filled with obvious symbolism and has a most satisfying conclusion. This is a personal favorite. If you can find a copy, buy it.

This is a basically simple story capturing a period of time in "high society" life one hundred years ago in Austria. It was a simpler time, when people enjoyed reading books, cars were amazing big machines, and most people traveled about in horse and carriage. The principal characters are the Baron, the veteran actor Klaus Maria Brandauer, the mother, Faye Dunaway and playing the 12 year old son, David Eberts. To me, almost every scene in this film is like a post card or a beautiful painting. The atmosphere of Austria in winter; the wonderful old hotel and spa. The beautiful music by Hans Zimmer also added to the mood of the film. Faye Dunaway was literally breath taking. When she walked into the Hotel lobby every head was turned to watch her. I expect that was not acting, but a natural reaction by everyone there, to a beautiful woman coming into their presence. Handsome young actor David Eberts was perfect in the role of Edmund. The director, Andrew Birkin, wisely uses many extreme close ups of David's face and the kids' big brown eyes. Edmund was a lonely boy looking for a friend to "hang out" with, or a surrogate for his father who apparently didn't have much time for him. The mysterious Baron filled the role, taking an interest in this wonderful boy while all the time noticing how beautiful his mother was. All of the characters of the story, like everyone else in life, have their own emotional or physical problems to deal with. The Baron would tell stories to Edmund, and the boy was totally mesmerized by everything the Baron said. Again, the close-up shots of Edmund capture that intense attention he was giving the storyteller. As the Baron drew closer to Sonya, the mother, Edmund began to change, and was hurt and feeling betrayed by "his" new friend. In a key scene, Sonya said to the Baron "Edmund will go away from me, not because of you, or me, or even because he wants to, but because he must." One of the stories the Baron told Edmund was "Erl König", the Elf-King, by Goethe. In the end, a father holding his son, realizes the "kind war tot", the child was dead! The child Edmund was now becoming less dependent on his mother, and in fact as with the actor David Eberts, was growing away from childhood. The child was dead.