Chronique d'Anna-Magdanela Bach

OK, I'll cut this a little slack for being made in 1968, though this does not fully excuse the horrible sound quality. Stereo became common 10 years before, yet this is in mono, with compressed, over-modulated, sometimes severely distorted sound, recorded on an optical film track, with background noise. I saw better-recorded educational films shown on a 16mm projector in class as a kid. Hmmm, maybe this was the audience for this project -- an educational film for European music classes?

On the plus side, videos of musical performances were not as common as now; I wish they were. It is interesting to see a performance, especially keyboard or orchestral, even if the camera is static. But you need first-rate sound... and color. This is filmed in black and white. I love black and white, but this is washed out and fuzzy.

I love classical music, especially Bach. What makes Bach unique is not his use of melody, which was more fully exploited later, but his use of interweaving contrapuntal lines, requiring the listener to follow multiple instruments simultaneously. This is largely lost in mono, especially with this muddled sound. This makes me suspect that the producers didn't really understand the music. However, at least having the visuals of the performers helps a bit to recapture some of that polyphonic interplay.

The performances are adequate. But today with modern sound technology, and the wide variety of performances and interpretations, often on period instruments, these performances seem hopelessly stodgy.

The concept was not entirely off the mark: filming Bach with period instruments, performers dressed in period clothes, with historical settings, is interesting. It would have been more interesting with audiences, for that's how the music would have been performed, but then you would need more costumes. In color with digital sound, this might have been striking, but in black and white, even the costumes are boring.

This isn't available on video, unfortunately, so you'll probably have to see it at some retrospective. As any film biography of a composer should be, it is saturated with Bach's music, and much of the film is little more than a filmed recital, in costume. But it contains much significant biographical material so that we get an insight into the difficulties of life in Bach's time. It seems that one of his children is always dying. This is quite factual: of Bach's 20 children that were born of his 2 wives, only 6 survived to adulthood. This is a masterpiece that should be seen if at all possible.

"Dogmatic," as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. "Pretentious?" Yes. "Cinematic?" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.

If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.

This was intended, I guess, as a totally straight "chronicle" of J. S. Bach and of his second wife Anna Magdalena. When the project was conceived this must have seemed like a good idea, motivated by love and respect for Bach's music. But I found the end result to be slow-moving, uncinematic, unsympathetic to its characters, wooden, and (after about an hour) unwatchable.

It would in principle have been enjoyable to listen to the extensive musical performances included in this film. But the sound quality unfortunately is quite poor. I also found that the cheesy costumes and wigs distracted my attention from the music.

I'd like to offer a rebuttal to some of the negative comments about this movie. I, too, noticed the same things that turned off the others - the lack of typical plot, dialog, and drama. In fact, halfway through the movie, i was having a hard time staying focused. But then I started to get it. After the movie was over, I watched the "Making of..." documentary that was on the DVD. It was only then that I truly understood. The director Straub, a refugee from Algeria, living in Germany. A 10 year quest to make the movie. Everything was dogmatically intentional. He wanted the performances to be shown statically. He believed if one was to listen to a 7 minute piece of music, all the drama should be derived from the music, not the cinematic arts. All sound was location, the musicians are the highest caliber - everything played on screen. What movies today could boast of that? Also, he said he wanted it to be as much a documentary about the virtuoso Leonhardt who plays Bach, as it was about Bach. To him, a long shot on the face of the performer was all one needed to experience the ecstasy of Bach. Remember, too, this is 1967 Germany. He was trying to avoid all nationalism, and was glad to have a Dutchman play Bach. I think looking at this movie through the eyes of today's short attention-spanned, explosion thirsty movie-going POV is ignorant. I doubt many of those people could even sit through a 7 minute piece of music. Straub was 30 years ahead of his time. Anyone who appreciates the Dogma95 should understand. Finally, I see that he and his wife had been making movies together for over 40 years, until Danièle died last fall. My condolences, Mr. Straub. This is one person you have reached.