clanciai The film was made shortly after the death of Romola Nijinskaya, the wife of the legendary dancer, as if the producers just had waited for her death to be able to make the film. It is very carefully done, sticking meticulously to the well documented case as it was lovingly presented by his wife herself in her two books about her famous husband. It's a sad story, of course, if not even like a Greek tragedy, and the film admirably tries to embrace and make the tragedy conceivable, by going into details about the passions of Diaghilev, Nijinsky, Fokine, the lovely Karsavina (the most sympathetic of them all) and Romola. But the chief asset of the film is the great acting by them all, including Ronald Pickup as Stravinsky ('a very dry man' according to Nijinsky, who didn't like him at all,) Alan Badel at his best as the Baron Ginzburg, Jeremy Irons as Fokine and above all Alan Bates as a superb Diaghilev, quite human in all his necessary monstrosity as an impresario with too many eccentric characters under his wings, and George de la Pena as an almost painfully true and convincing Nijinsky. To this comes the wonderful ballet performances, including "The Spectre of the Rose" (Nijinsky's tour de force) and "The Afternoon of a Faun", the crucial turning point in his career from only dancer to controversial choreographer. Deserving the highest merit of all is the most admirable reconstruction of the ballets russes at that time with the fabulous art works of Leon Bakst, Diaghilev's unique scenographer, turning all Fokine's and Nijinsky's ballets into sumptuous living fairy tales of fantastic dancing, perhaps most clearly illustrated by Rimsky-Korsakov's "Sheheradzade", which music finally crowns the film in the end, which is needed, since, as I said, it's a sad story, but it couldn't have been made better. The only objection that would be relevant is the failure of making Nijinsky's lapse into madness credible. It was actually a long process, he wasn't definitely past hope until 1917 (4 years after the end of the film), and the main reason was not the crises of his relationships but the impact on him by the First World War. This important piece in the puzzle is missing in the film. Instead you see him ending up in a strait-jacket without further explanation. It's a great film none the less, and as time goes by it will certainly win the acclaim it deserves as one of the great ballet film classics, second only to "The Red Shoes" 1948 and "The Specter of the Rose" 1946, which actually also is a masked portrait of Nijinsky (see my review of that film).

Armand a love story. not with profound roots. not very inspired. useful for colors of a form of homage. only as decoration for a story who remains charming only for its potential. a great potential of a dark subject. so, it is difficult to define it more than a film with George de la Pena and Alan Bates, a gay story and about a victim of his too great ambition. a film like an old jewel. or like drawing flower. interesting desire, seductive project and cages of common tools. and flavor of a world not always realistic. a movie about Nijinsky. not bad, not attractive. only isle of a form to conquer public. and remember of a ballet hero. is it enough ? maybe not.

moonspinner55 Acclaimed ballet dancer Vaslav Nijinsky, the "Polish peasant" who became the toast of Europe in the early 1900s, isn't very well served by this meandering biography which looks and sounds good but seems internally stultified. Nijinsky (played as a spoiled child by newcomer George De La Pena) attempts to extend his talents to the choreography of his latest showcase, under the tutelage of his lover and partner Sergei Diaghilev (Alan Bates), but cracks under the enormous pressure to be brilliant; meanwhile, a budding ballerina schemes her way into Nijinsky's arms after the star and his impresario have a romantic falling-out. Director Herbert Ross, apparently still riding the high from his 1977 ballet-themed drama "The Turning Point", has no new ideas on how to stage an electrifying or kinetic dance performance; the music direction is strong, however the magic of a timeless presentation is missing (what should have been the movie's strongest asset is in fact its weakest link). The temperament of artists in general is well-observed (if a bit over-the-top), however the love story between dancer and producer fails to come off. 1980 may still have been too early in the game to show passion between two men; Ross gives us a chaste rendering of it, followed by what seems like years of sniping and jealousy between the couple. Leslie Browne (a hold-over from "The Turning Point") never begins to suggest the cunning ambitions of a woman who hoped to 'change' Nijinsky', while the passion in that heterosexual union is confined to a single scene. What was everyone so bashful about? A brilliant little light show during the end credits is far more sparkling than anything in the rest of the film! *1/2 from ****

David Atfield Whatever the facts may have been, the screenplay writers here have chosen to interpret the end of Nijinsky's dazzling career and his descent into madness, as being caused by the end of his romantic relationship with Diaghilev. An interesting premise - that what appeared to most people to be a simple case of a "dirty old man" exploiting a young man's ambition (or perhaps an ambitious young man exploiting an older man's lust), was in fact a genuine love affair. They weren't using each other, they genuinely loved each other.Sadly, in 1980, it appears the film-makers were not brave enough to explore this fully enough for the film to work. The characters talk about passion a lot, but we don't see it much. Indeed the only love scene between the two men involves a couple of little kisses with a handkerchief held to their lips! How wonderful it would have been to see these two men genuinely passionate with each other - physically and spiritually - and how they managed to turn that passion into great works of art. This way we could understand Nijinsky's devastation when Diaghilev rejects him. As it stands, it seems to come from nowhere.This is no fault of the actors. Both Alan Bates and George De La Pena do what they can, with the scenes that they have. What a shame the film wasn't made a few years later, when gay relationships could be explored on screen more completely. This could have been one hell of a film. As it is, the ballet reconstructions are excellent and the costumes superb. Performances are strong, with the possible exception of Leslie Browne, who is a little out of her depth here as the scheming rich girl chasing Nijinsky. She fared much better in Herbert Ross' earlier ballet film THE TURNING POINT.Herbert Ross was a terrific choice to direct the film, having been a professional ballet director and choreographer, and the film has a superb sense of period and great style. But the heart is missing. The racing heartbeats of two men, and two great artists, madly in love.