Taking Sides - Der Fall Furtwängler

I've read the reviews posted here and they all present HArvey Keitel's character as being the ignorant, simplistic American. I don't see it that way. I think Keitel plays the role as a non-European -- that is, as not "sophisticated," not "polished," not polite, playing the whole time with the cultural link between stereotypes of "european" and "intelligent." I think the contrast between the army major (and former insurance salesman) and the German conductor is between two ways of being smart, being honest, and being good. The movie plays deliberately on the stereotypes of superiority, and I am surprised so many of the reviewers accepted the images at face value, especially when one of the underlying themes was the idea of German superiority.

But, as another person here has said, one of the great things about this movie is that it will start arguments.

I won't go into details of the film as others below have covered this much better than I could ever hope to do so.

What I'd like to note is that this is a film of a dying breed. It is truly educational and stimulates our systematically dumbed down intellect ( as also Szabo's older film "Mephisto" ). It's when reading the comments of other viewers that one realizes that there are still people out there that can appreciate film as a vehicle of dialectic and whose insightful observations add to our collective learning experience. Thank you.. it is SUCH a pleasure to read your comments.

dvoulio

Hungarian filmmaker István Szabó returned to the screen in 2001, with this adaptation of Ronald Harwood's stage play about the controversial case of Wilhelm Furtwängler, the most famous orchestra conductor in Germany during the Nazi regime. A study of opposing points of view on the meaning and value of art, but above all a confrontation of different cultures and world visions. The case is conducted by an American commander, whose vulgarity and narrow-mindedness (with simplistic definitions of right, wrong, democracy, etc., echoing the position of some Americans) is contrasted with Furtwängler's sensibility. Harvey Keitel is an excellent choice for the military, while Stellan Skarsgård brings aplomb and dignity as Furtwängler, who has the support of Keitel's assistants (played by Birgit Minichmayr, and Moritz Bleibtreu of 'Run, Lola, Run' fame.) A short film, considering the length of Szabó's films as 'Mephisto' and 'Colonel Redl.'

Art vs. politics; the ethical dilemmas of talented artists when politics approaches them; this has always been István Szabó's favourite topic. Already the Oscar-winner Mephisto featured a talented actor selling his soul to the Nazis. This time the story is based on real-life events: while most of his colleagues fled the country, Wilhelm Furtwängler, this truly exceptional conductor stayed in Germany during the Nazi era and continued his career with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. His "collaboration" provoked strong accusations after the war.

The film is the story of the investigation by the American post-war authorities to decide whether the accusations of collaboration are valid. The film presents two ethical answers. The first one is stated by the American officer (played excellently by Harvey Keitel), who believes that Furtwängler is morally guilty, as he accepted a shining career from the Nazi's hand. The second answer is presented by Furtwängler himself who tries to defend himself by stating that in order to help (by "help" he both meant practical assistance - as he did save many Jews during the war - and a spiritual message - as he claimed that his music maintained the inner good in his nation's soul even in the time of Evil) he had to compromise with the Nazis, but he never really collaborated with them. The film itself (despite its title) does not take side, although it seems to sympathize with Furtwängler as an artist and generally presents the American officer as an ignorant and illiterate person. However, as the investigation proceeds, this aggressive and obnoxious person asks questions that are very hard to answer: is it acceptable to make such a compromise with a regime that kills 6 million Jews? Is it really so that Furtwängler made the compromise with the idea of helping people in need? Or rather, did he make it to advance his career?

The film has triggered exciting conversations with my friends who have differing opinions. I think these lengthy talks are the best proof that this is an excellent film and it has achieved its aim.

The story has several layers (I particularly liked the way differences of American and German cultures are presented), the characters are exciting and well played: if you like thought-provoking movies, go for this one!

I came to this film with a detailed knowledge of the actual historical events. Many viewers will most likely be largely unfamiliar with the complexities of the case, and there are some details which are important, but glossed over.

For example: there are frequent references in the dialogue to Furtwängler's rival, Herbert von Karajan ("Little K.") Why did the Americans attack Furtwängler, and not von Karajan, who was an ardent Nazi? Furtwängler was prevented from conducting in the U.S., while von Karajan was lionized. Perhaps the makers of this film thought that the implications of this were too big to be discussed in the film. I'm sure that they didn't even want to go near the fact that the people who ran the de-nazification program were Americans with close ties to the Nazis themselves.

Also, Furtwängler's rationale for staying in Germany was somewhat more philosophical than the film implies. He thought he was defending the legacy of Mozart, Beethoven et al against the Nazis, and that this was a sacred responsibility. A bit of this comes out in the film, but in a superficial way.

With respect to the success of the film otherwise, Stellan Skarsgaard is excellent as Furtwängler, even managing to resemble him somewhat. I think that Harvey Keitel is somewhat hampered by the script -- the film would have been more successful if Keitel had come off as more conflicted and less one-dimensional. Clearly the director wished to imply that Keitel was conflicted, but that, as a military man, he was required to toe the line -- the frequent shots of Army indoctrination films (about how bad the Germans were) were intended to provide a rationale for Keitel's behavior. But the film would have been more compelling if Keitel were given an opportunity to express more doubts about what he was being asked to do. I also thought that the ending was a bit anticlimactic.