Testimony

Be careful what you believe after viewing this film. It is based on a "memoir" that has been proved to be fake by scholar Laurel Fay. Shostakovich's state of mind as he was dying was not as morbid as the movie would have you believe. If you would like to know how he felt about dying just listen to the Viola Sonata, Op. 147. It's the last music he wrote as he lay dying, and it most definitely does not end in a morose, sad way.

This movie over emphasizes the supposed connection between Stalin and Shostakovich. Shostakovich did not see himself as being anything like Stalin. I would wager to say that Shostakovich saw himself as being very different from the brutal dictator. Stalin did not inspire Shostakovich; his later works are not lesser compositions as the movie implies.

The previous commenter mentions that there is little narrative in the movie. That's because Testimony has no narrative either. It's an amalgamation of pilfered writings and spurious facts. Solomon Volkov has never defended himself in any condemnation of his work. His silence speaks volumes.

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.

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.

This is a remarkably fine film, with a genuine look at the kind of fascism/totalitarianism and fear that come whenever societies stray too far from the center, whether lurching too far left and killing millions or too far right and doing the same thing ... Kingsley and the supporting cast do an amazing job. Why does it have such a low rating? This is a cinematic achievement as good as any I can recall. The sets bring back a complete and accurate look at what the "flavor" of Soviet Stalinist Communist architecture and life were like (I studied Russian and Russia during the Cold War era and know a bit about this if you are skeptical). The music is, of course, remarkable; but it's not just the music, but also how it's used. Whether in relation to the Soviets, the Nazis, the intelligentsia, the proletariat, or Shostakovich's own family. Again, I think this movie should be at least a 7.5; and wonder why it isn't.

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.