Death in Venice is the kind of film that people think cinephiles go wild for.
It's about a troubled artist that goes down to the titular city for a vacation and runs into a boy so incredibly beautiful that it fucking destroys him. You'd be tempted to compare this to Lolita, but it's a totally different story: the two never interact, it's more about the mental state of the guy and his reaction to the sublime (done through commendable acting), as well as a depiction of a luxurious setting at the same time that a cholera outbreak begins to tear it down. But it's very hard to say that anything
happens, it's mostly walking around in very normal situations with only a couple scenes where the guy actually talks about what he's thinking, there's no narration or anything. Ultimately, he drops dead from cholera, sitting in a chair at the beach, unceremoniously.
One review Wikipedia quotes says that some shots "could be extracted from the frame and hung on the walls of the Louvre or the Vatican in Rome" and given how much they have been reproduced and reposted (particularly those from pic's scene) I absolutely agree. I downloaded the book it comes from and found its rebuttals quite funny:
>Other critics afflicted with private blind-spots have called Death in Venice boring, tedious, slow, devoid of action, pointless, without catharsis, etc. All of which, I humbly suggest, indicates more about the shallowness and obtusity of the individual critic than about the intrinsic qualities of this superior film.>Death in Venice is not a story about a pretty teenager and a dirty old man. It is superficial to carp about "nothing happening,” "lack of confrontation,” "absence of catharsis.” For here we are faced with a complex and sophisticated mood piece, relentless in its pursuit of esthetic truth. The boy and the man never converse; why should they? Their unique communion is not based on the banalities of social intercourse, nor is it founded on coarse physicality.Lol, lmao even. It's not wrong, but, you know, it's not a film I would recommend to anyone ever. He also downplays the homosexuality in favor of more abstract ideals, that part I do disagree with. Ebert's review is better.
I also watched a 2021 documentary where they explain how he was impacted by it and the situation in general, how a kid was given global fame and thrust into a situation he didn't understand while
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.