La mujer de Tchaikovsky

Love dream turning into obsessive illusions Extreme blinded talent ignores the other The unknown revealed No one knows about creative paths, only the Artist The others will always be spectators and will be then fulfilled by true art.

What is happiness?

Film Sound is crucial and what touched me most. It punctuates all different and contrasting moments. Decor and photography very good It reminded me the drama of Camille Claudel but the protagonist, Antonina, was not here an artist or her virtue was not having anything.

What is genius, creativity and what what is banality and normality?

Unexplained love.

Alyona Mikhailova is really quite good here as the all-but-obsessed "Antontina"" who takes a shine to the already acclaimed, but not especially wealthy, Russian composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky (Odin Lund Biron). She manages to use her influential friends to get her into his conservatoire but though a competent pianist, struggles to make the grade or to pay the 50 roubles per month fee! Her infatuation encourages her to propose marriage to him. He politely declines, but she perseveres and in the end he opts for a companionship style of relationship. Initially that works, but gradually her love wants to manifest itself in something more physical and that repels him. Repels him to the extent that he leaves her and seeks a divorce. She fights this and with poverty and extreme emotional loneliness looming we follow her life through to it's rather sad conclusion during which, despite having three children with her lawyer lover "Shlykov" (Vladimir Mishukov), she never fails in her love. History tells us a little of the man's peccadilloes, and indeed as the film progresses we soon see that his "preferred" company is of much more importance to him that his marriage. That drama plays out in an uncomfortable to watch series of scenarios that cannot help to elicit a great degree of sympathy for a lady caught up in something that neither can control. The films looks great capturing the imagery, poverty and aspirations of late 19th century Imperial Russia but it's a really slow burn and I am afraid I just didn't really ever quite understand why she was quite to pathologically besotted with a man who, to his credit, was clear from the outset that he didn't want a marriage at all, and that if he did it was unlikely to offer more than a "brotherly" love. I needed to know just a little more of what made her tick and to be honest, I also needed a bit more meat on the bones of his life too. There's also a distinct paucity of his music which rather reduced this to the status of a stylishly photographed melodrama of family discord that really underdelivered on the characterisation front. Mikhailova does well though, her diminishing grasp on sanity and reality being well depicted and in all this is worth a watch. Just a little disappointing.

This movie left me sitting in cinema chair few minutes after it finished.

Photography, camera, scenes, details, symbolism - everything!

A story of a woman, who adored her men, but never was loved back. Her inner struggle and suffering, living with it, and destroying herself - all for love!

A touch of feminism, but not radical one, in normal proportions as it used to be in 19. Century.

This director is a genius! Please give it a try!

Movie is 2h 30min, but flies quicky as keeps your attention Really, a must see, at least once!

Story of women's love on the border with insanity!

STRONG RECOMENDATION! :)

The movie is of very good quality and highly satisfying to watch.

It offers a deep study of the female character and her life, portraying her with a great deal of sympathy. But it also carries a disappointing tone of being an homosexual and its place in society. Being gay is almost depicted as something that prevents one from experiencing the true beauty of a woman. Is this the director's issue as well? He presents Antonina in such a beautifully crafted way-so fragile, yet so broken and sad-because she becomes part of a hostile environment. So much attention goes to her and so emotionally charged scenes depicted that only a deeply feeling person can truly process and bring to the screen. Yet the story is about a waste of all of that beauty filled with sadness and dissatisfaction.

Tchaikovsky used her to protect himself from accusations, and she used him to stay close to his talent, as she admitted it was difficult to be a female musician. There was something deeply sad about the fact that he couldn't satisfy her physical desires and suffered because of it. At the same time, she was too young, naive, and obsessed to accept a life without him.

A personal note: I didn't like seeing modern musicians in the movie. It made it feel less like a true work of art and more like a casual gathering, which ruined the atmosphere.

It's a story about a woman threatening Tchaikovsky to be her husband, or she would kill herself, and wandering all around hysterically to try to find out where Tchaikovsky was after his escape of their marriage. Because Tchaikovsky was a gay, he would of course not fall in love with a woman, not to even mention marry one! God damn it! The whole process took 2.5 hours, and the movie just seems like it couldn't get a point, like a fly hovering from the east to the west, and the opposite direction again, again and again with no destination. It's just too ridiculous. Even the worst soap opera in my country would never feature something like this. I really feel like I'm fooled around. I think that rating 2 stars is just too enough. I can't rate even higher.