Paganini (1990)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Too much of everything

The Age of Commercialism

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Note: I thought it would be more in line with the spirit of the film if I capitalised every instance of KLAUS KINSKI's name being used throughout this reviewI have no doubt that this is the most narcissistic film ever to see the inside of a cinema. Even the very title KINSKI Paganini shows a total lack of restraint.It begins with an audience of pretty women frigging themselves senseless as KINSKI lashes at his violin. The whole movie is pretty much a montage of women losing complete control of their senses at the mere thought of KINS--- I mean Paganini. Even eleven year old girls wish they could, for but one second, experience the full thrust of his virility. He even sends sea-animals into a dizzy frenzy of lust- and horses, too. You see two horses going at it early on in the film and I'm sure both of them were secretly thinking of KINSKI. At least that's what he probably wanted us to think.Just like with Dennis Hopper's The Last Movie, whatever plot may have been present whilst shooting was completely torn to shreds in the editing suite. What remains is a lot of strangely pretty shots of KINSKI power-walking through a lush 19th Century Europe or cavorting with buxom underrage actresses inside ornate manor houses. It's mostly shot in a cinéma vérité style. If it weren't for the fact that he's on screen for almost every second of the movie, I wouldn't be surprised if it was KINSKI himself manning the camera. The only time you see shots of anyone else is when a beautiful woman is rubbing herself lustfully, her thoughts occupied by the eponymous scowling Nosferatu with sweaty jet-black hair and a bald patch.Ah, but KINSKI has a more sensitive side, too. Just like that memorable scene in My Best Fiend where he gently plays with a butterfly that's become strangely enamoured of him, we see him care for his exceptionally pretty young son. Although even this relationship seems oddly lusty. The camera-work, well-staged as most of it is, has far too many close- ups. You almost never see any wide shots showing off the beautiful locations. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind at all this is because KINSKI wanted KINSKI to fill up the frame as much as possible. According to his ol' sparring partner Herzy, KINSKI threw a tantrum for not having the opening shot to Aguirre be a close-up of him walking down that misty mountain, instead of the hundreds of people and cattle that we actually saw. Well, he finally got his way.In all likelihood, you'll absolutely loathe this movie. And you'll probably be right to. But there is a strange energy coursing throughout- that of a man at the end of his tether, foreseeing his death, and spending all his remaining lifeblood on this one final work.I believe KLAUS KINSKI may have been an incredibly rare genetic throwback to some transitional Cro-Magnon race. He shows no signs of the tempering of thousands of years of social evolution. He's like some purely physical being. You can tell that by the time this movie was shot, he didn't so much burn the candle at both ends as throw it into the fire and cackle maniacally as it melted. He died two years after this was released. It was the last film he shot in a career that spanned over 130 movies. I can't think of a more fitting way to go out.If you came here as a Paganini fan rather than a KINSKI fan (as if anyone could be a bigger fan of KINSKI than KINSKI himself), you can always just imagine this is a sexy 80-minute music video to some of Paganini's works. The interpretations by Salvatore Accardo are wonderfully performed.

Hmmm. First half is pornographic sh*t. The second is better. What I liked was Kinski walking and playing violin, and his son grieving in the end. I think he (Kinski) had some kind of an idea about this film that he failed to bring to a good film. Contrast between music and macabre footage on the screen? Independent unchained life and art of Paganini? The time line was interesting, no real plot line, Fragments. It was made for those who already know the Paganini-story, so the plot isn't really necessary, but only the hectic feeling matters. This was really simple movie, it had some really powerful and good scenes, but the rest is just really bad. The symbolism (lamb) makes me laugh. This was quite embarrassing for a Kinski fan. Beware!Censureship sucks!

Klaus Kinski, full-time actor and madman, takes on the character of Paganini in this painterly tableau of the artist's obsessions and world.Kinski assumes the role of star, director, occasional cameraman and places family members in prominent parts. The film is heavy on symbolism and sparse in the storytelling department. It is basically a series of meditations and the artist at rest before he goes on rampages of sex, as frenetic as his violin playing. The film is full of often beautiful photography (mostly using natural light or candles) and the distorted vision of the period comes to life in a staggering way. In terms of narrative, it is a complete fiasco, but Kinski does not give a damn about the story. He cares about the character and the moment. As such, character and moment are as intense and vibrant as any Kinski performance.Kinski as an actor always seemed to burn through the screen. This film is 100% Kinski. Therefore, predictably, it is completely overwhelming, unbearable one might say, even if one overlooks the manic sex scenes (a heroic feat): a woman touches herself to the sound of Paganini's playing, while horses fornicate; the camera whirls savagely about as Paganini dives hungrily into an admirer's skirt, etc. Frankly these scenes would be out of place in any other movie. What unsettles here is the fact that they seem entirely at home in this crazed psychopath of a film.Kinski Paganini is impossible to rate. You will very likely hate it (all the more so if you see it in the company of other people). As a window into Klaus Kinski's mind, it is essential. And, since it is a completely personal work featuring the creator's obsessions and themes, under his complete control, it fits the dictionary definition of art. Art is in the eye of the beholder (so no one need feel personally insulted), and for better or worse, this is one of the rare times I have seen its kind on a screen. You get it or you don't, and on a visceral level since narrative or sense is not the issue (in fact the only similar film is Luis Bunuel's "Un Chien Andalou", where you just follow a train of thought...).A train-wreck of a film. Filmed with bewildering sensitivity and and fueled by intimidating passion, this is the cinematic expression of a man's soul.

The tagline is not referring to the (too) many flairs in this film. This is not a film, but a myriad. Not unlike Tarkovsky's 'Mirror', the storyline is labyrinthic. In 'Paganini' we are plunged into the flow of life as seen just before dying, and within the flashbacks there are memories.Son Achille, superbly played by son Nikolai Kinksi (without any hint of the lingual barriers that he must have experienced while shooting this demanding role; check out his role in 'Tortilla Soup', the Ang Lee goes Latin comedy where he plays very nicely a ... Brazilian.) watches the struggle of his father, adding his own reminiscence to the story.Fragmented though it may be, this is a romantic tale, grand & tragic, told with passion and devotion. It took Klaus Kinski 20 years to create his heart's desire. So, I reckon, there are not many "mistakes", "loose ends", "murkiness" or "shabby editing" here. My guess is that all we see is well thought of (referring to the 'version originale' of Kinski himself, as to be seen on the German double disc DVD -with Italian, English & German dubs-, which shows besides loads of exciting extras both the Maestro's version as the producer's vulgarity). It is too easy to criticize. Who understood 'The Mirror' after a few viewings only ?Kinski of course is no Tarkovsky. He is Maestro Klaus, and very probable the reincarnation of Paganini. But his Magnus Epos is not just an homage. It is even more than his life quest. Although Papa Klaus is omnipresent & inescapable, the torch is held by his son. Which makes KK a link between past & future. And that is truly amazing. Mr. Kinski, miracle-man.PS:The story within the story of this story has not finished yet. Maybe one day someone close to the heart and mind of Klaus Kinski will dare and cut a 2hour-version of 'Paganini'. Maybe Mr. Nikolai ?