Testimony

In the western world Shostakovich was always said to be a faithful soviet communist composer. Shortly after Shostakovich's death, Volkov (a friend of Sh.) emigrated to the US, having notes of endless talks with Sh. in the luggage. Volkov published the "memoir's". In this book, Sh. appears the other way round: a silent dissident, a man who fooled the communist authorities, but also a man who suffered dramatically from repressions. Obviously Sh's family and soviet officials took all measures to "prove" the book was a hoax. And even western experts had doubts too. It was not before Sh. son Maxim emigrated, that the discussions about authenticity got new fuel. Today, Volkov's book is widely accepted and trusted.

Back to the film: This was a brave move to make a movie based on this book. There is not much story, just episodes. Perhaps the experimental habit is the only way to approach this challenge. Overall, not a bad effort, but certainly not the big hit. I am not too sure as to whether Ben Kingsley was the best choice, but who knows how Shostakovich really was? In my opinion the music selection is the weak point of the film. Obviously, only the most popular bits and pieces have been used (e.g. symphonies no. 5 and 7, the great pasacaglia from the violin concerto etc.), but this was not in all scenes appropriate. I found it rather disturbing to have this music always in the background, let alone the omission of other important works. The movie focuses on the relationship Shostakovich-Stalin: certainly the most fascinating part of Sh's life. At the end, the movie has an episode on the 13th symphony, which bases on the poem "Babi Jar" by Jevtushenko. This was the only big trouble Sh. got in the time after Stalin - not because of the music but the poem! This episode should have been dropped.

My final verdict: an interesting movie, interesting views on Stalinism and maybe a good approach to Shostakovich's music for people who never heard his music. But, make sure you had enough sleep or there is enough tea or coffee available when you watch it.

I can strongly recommend the book. It is much more enjoyable than the movie.

i was relieved to see that leonard maltin wrote a less than glowing review of this movie---it means it must be one fine film. if he thought 'testimony' was 'overlong' and a 'turgid narrative,' then for him 'amadeus' must have seemed the equivalent of fatty arbuckle slipping on a banana peel. the fact is, 'testimony' is brilliant. if your idea of a good movie is an historic nightmare of artistic oppression and indentured prolificacy, then youll put this gem at the top of your a-list, if you can find it. if you like shostakovich and cant find the movie, read the book while playing his 7th symphony in a bombed-out warehouse. then, light your stale non-filters off the flame of a smoldering leonard maltin review, and contemplate the plethora of stars hes thrust upon the film career of yahoo serious.

**special warning to film buffs: 'testimony' depicts the great sergei eisenstein slipping on a banana peel.**

It doesn't need a lover of classical music to appreciate the dramatic conflicts in the life of Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975), but the heavily camouflaged screen treatment presented here is more an artistic interpretation than a traditional biography. The film wants to expose the (often bitter) core of the composer's musical inspiration, by daring to be more expressionistic than any of his symphonies. It doesn't even make sense to evaluate Ben Kingsley's starring performance, because the entire design of the film is pitched so far beyond any standard of objective realism, with hypnotic, dreamlike imagery shifting from black and white to color and from dramatic facsimile to actual archival footage. The results are both powerful and pretentious, working best when the music itself is highlighted in historical context. Shostakovich was very much a witness as well as a victim of his era, and his music often reflected the violent events and conditions around him.

Volkov's book, by the same title, is a collection of sarcasms, unique to Russians, about living under the Soviet system. Except for use of sarcasm in the script, the book has no relationship to this very complicated movie. Some of these comments here, seem like they came from folks who have not read the book.

The movie is hard to categorize. I have never seen anything like it. Tony Palmer is a genius! I met Shostakovich in about 1960 when he attended, I think Meistersinger, at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles. From my impression of Shostakovich, I felt that Ben Kingsley had somehow studied the man and connected with him, Kingsley being as ideal as you would expect, such as his preparation and ability to portray Gandhi.

This movie is certainly for insiders; still there were a few things I didn't quite understand. I think perhaps the surreal moments had to do with the vanity of a pretentious society and it futility, such as his playing a keyboard on a raft in the fog and capsizing, or him walking among the clowns coming at you on the sidewalk.

Tony Palmer and Ben Kingsley got me very deep into the Shostakovich pathos and the conditions under which he survived, and I haven't been the same since.

The DVD has been released and there should be copies on eBay. I am disappointed that the DVD was not mastered from a better copy of the movie. I once had a pristine copy that I taped off of PBS. I loaned it to a noted conductor and never got it back.

The film could have used a good editor. It is at least 45 minutes too long, with lots of repetition of dialogue and scenes from earlier in the film, which renders the last part quite tedious. Also, the massacre of the Jews by the Nazis at Babi Yar seems to be laid directly at Stalin's feet, which is historically incorrect and therefore confusing. Also, as another reviewer has pointed out, some previous knowledge of Shostakovich's conflicts with the regime of Joseph Stalin will help in following the story line, which is sometimes unclear.