Taking Sides
|
List Price: Our Price: $16.96 You Save: $2.99 (15%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.87 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Taking Sides
Movie Review: "Kulturreligion" vs Justice
Summary: 5 Stars
With the decline of traditional moral and religious beliefs in Germany
and other parts of Europe in the 19th and early part of the 20th century, a new "worship" of the arts and culture came to take its place which was called "Kulturreligion"-the "religion" of culture. That is why in many European cities, the central hall for the performance of opera and classica music is called "the Palace of Culture" or some such name, whereas in America, where this "kulturreligion" never caught on to the degree it did in Europe, they simply have names like "Lincoln Center" or "Carnegie Hall".
Wilhelm Furtwangler, the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic during the period of "the Third Reich" of Nazi horror, was one of the "high priests" of this Kulturreligion. Thus, he, and the members of his orchestra are appalled when he finds himself forced to account for his collaboration with the Nazi regime. This outstanding film shows the confrontation between Maj. Steve Arnold (played brilliantly by Harvey Keitel), who views it has his job to bring the Nazis and their sympathizers to justice, and Furtwangler who keeps insisting that "Kultur and politics must be kept separate" which he believes exempts him from any responsibilty for his actions. We hear he and his musicians coming up with lame excuses why they performed at the Nuremberg Party Rallies and a birthday celebration for Hitler. They claim that really Furtwangler was a big hero because he managed to avoid giving the Nazi salute by walking on-stage holding his conductor's baton in his right hand. On the other hand, this "high priest" of Kultur was found to have used his position and close connections with the regime in order to have a hostile music critic sent to the Russian Front to perish at Stalingrad.
Much of this is predictable, but the real punch the film gives occurs when Maj. Arnold's assistant, Lt Wills, who is a Jewish refugee from Germany and whose family members were destroyed in the Holocaust, in addition to his secretary, whose father was executed as a result of his involvement in the unsuccessful 20 July 1944 Bomb Plot on Hitler's Life, end up DEFENDING Furtwangler, claiming that Maj. Arnold is too harsh on him.
This shows how insidious this "Kulturreligion" cult came to be.
Maj. Arnold confronts Lt. Wills and says "You are a Jew, how can you defend him?". The Jews fell into "Kulturreligion"'s web doubly, not only using it as a crutch to replace their traditional Jewish religious and moral code, (just as the German non-Jews with their traditional morality), but they thought it would be their "entry card" into "cultured" German society, from which they had been previously excluded. Even when "cultured" Germany turned into a monstrous, barbaric tyranny, Jews like Lt. Wills seem strangely attracted to it and Arnold's secretary admits that her father only turned against the regime when it was clear that Germany was going to lose the war.
The lesson of this film is that justice and morality can be too easily waved away by false deities and without a clear moral compass, even the most "civilized" people, AND EVEN their victims
can fall into the abyss. A warning for our time as well.
Movie Review: "To Be or Not to Be".
Summary: 5 Stars
"Taking Sides" (2001) is a typical product from Istvan Szabo (Hungarian, born 1938), that means: it is a great movie.
Before the present film, Szabo has directed "Mephisto" (1981), "Colonel Redl" (1985) and "Hanussen" (1988); all excellent works, addressing the same eternal dilemma: to BE or not to BE.
Very skillfully Szabo never pass judgment on character's choices. He simply exposes the facts and let the viewer take sides.
In the four films I mentioned, he works with real life characters, or as in "Mephisto", clearly based on an existing person.
All the dramatic elements are displayed so the audience may decide. Yet deciding will not be easy. You will be forced to look deep into your own soul before you are able to say yay or nay.
I'll give some examples to show how Mr. Szabo performs this.
Ms. Straube's father was shot after he was involved in the plot to kill The German Dictator; yet as his daughter acknowledge he was a supporter of the Ruling Party until he realized that Germany was doomed and The German Dictator refuse to surrender.
Lt. Wills when trying to convince Ms. Straube to return to work with them, uses the argument "if you stick with us you may tame, somehow, Maj. Arnold"; basically the same justification to which Dr. Furtwangler resort to remain in Germany after the National Socialists take power.
Maj. Arnold resorts to an abject informer to harass Dr. Furtwangler as the German Secret Police has done formerly.
Col. Dymshitz (as Sazbo himself) is very aware as how come an intellectual to be pleased by elbowing those "party brass" and will, somehow, abdicate his principles.
Maj. Arnold wonders why if all German people states "we didn't know what they were doing to the Jews", then afterwards they were eager to show how they had aided some Jew to evade this or that issue.
Crowning every self indulging statement or auto-justification is this one: "Oh no, we weren't performing at the Ruling Party rally, it was the night BEFORE!"
There are other points of excellence of the film such as cinematography, in charge of Lajos Koltai, who had teamed with Szabo in the films I mentioned above and also in "Being Julia" (2004).
The pastel palette of the films' colors, the beautiful takes of the huge stairways of the "office", the lovely composition of the very few outdoors photograms and the sage illumination of every scene are outstanding.
Play acting is admirable: veteran Harvey Keitel with more than a hundred films gives one of his best performances, portraying Maj. Arnold, since his appearances in "Bugsy" (1991) or "The Piano" (1993). The same may be said of Stellan Skarsgard fleshing Dr.Furtwangler.
Well there you are, take a look to the film and with a hand over your heart decide what is right and what is wrong!
Film lovers will enjoy this capo lavoro!
Reviewed by Max Yofre.
Movie Review: No Easy Answers
Summary: 5 Stars
I found this film about the pre-trial interrogation of Wilhelm Furtwaengler, conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic during the Third Reich, both disturbing and compelling. My discomfort arose from the one-sided nature of the interrogation, since Major Arnold (Harvey Keitel) has been given the mandate of securing a conviction against Furtwaengler by any means including humiliation. The Major is both a zealot and a bully who makes no effort to see the dilemma of the great maestro--whom he dismisses as a "bandleader,"--who has chosen to remain in Germany and has been forced to walk a "tightrope" in order to co-exist with and survive an intolerable regime. The Major, a philistine who has no understanding of the conflict between art and politics, furthermore, does not even speak the same language, figuratively speaking, as the shattered Furtwaengler. His interrogation methods, in fact, are recognized by Emmi, his jobbed-in German Secretary, as being reminiscent of those of the Gestapo.
The acting is superb, especially on the part of Stellan Skarsgard, whose nuanced portrayal of Furtwaengler is tremendously moving. Although Keitel's performance begins on such a high note that it has no place to go, it is nevertheless appropriate given the circumstances of his task of getting a conviction at any cost. Under director Istvan Szabo's guidance, however, the temptation to "take sides" with Furtwaengler, because of the Major's bullying, is subtly subverted by questions of conscience and motivation on the part of the maestro.
The recreation of post-war Berlin is superb. Two outstanding scenes take place at concerts: the first, of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, at a baroque church in the last days of the war, as allied bombers drop their payloads on Berlin; and the second, of the adagio of the Schubert string quintet, at the ruins of the same church, which has been bombed out. In the middle of the performance of the latter, the rain pours in and the black umbrellas go up, and no one thinks of leaving. The choice of music is emblematic: Beethoven with it's beat ( . . . -) [ V for Victory, for those too young to remember] accompanies the defeat of the Third Reich, while the sublime Schubert adagio offers consolation to the Berliners who are left to live with the consequences of that demented regime.
One of the aspects of this film that I liked the best is that it asks difficult questions of the viewer, but provides no answers--perhaps because there are none.
Movie Review: Fascinating play that will spark debate - don't take as history!
Summary: 5 Stars
Wilhelm Furtwängler was a great conductor who chose to stay in Germany and continue his work during the time of the Nazi regime. After the war there were trials for those who actually perpetrated crimes. There were also hearings to facilitate the so-called de-Nazification of Germany. Of course, after the, no one admitted to being a supporter of the Nazis let a lone a member of the party.
Furtwängler was investigated because of his prominence as the leader of the Berlin Philharmonic. He was eventually cleared and resumed his work. His record was ambiguous and remains so today. While he clearly helped Jews and risked much to protest the way Jewish musicians were being treated, he also made statements whose language can be taken as anti-Semitic. He was never invited to conduct in the United Sates after the war even though he was invited to take over the New York Philharmonic before the war.
This film is based on a successful play that uses these events as a background, but changes them for dramatic purposes. I note the actual history because it always comes up when discussing this play. This is not about the life of Wilhelm Furtwängler. It is about judging both guilt and judgment. Using the broad outline of Furtwängler's life it adds some fictional characters and invites to view to take sides. Is Furtwängler as shown in the play worthy of punishment? Should he be let go? In either case, why?
The actors in this movie are all good and the performances draw the viewer in and provoke strong reactions. Harvey Keitel plays the American official assigned to get Furtwängler (not to investigate the matter) in a very extreme way. I think this rabid approach may be done to balance the anger so many feel towards the Nazis. The idea of the play is not to push the viewer to one side or the other, but to provide enough information so that the viewer will feel conflicted on both sides. I think it does this very well and provides great material to spark discussion between friends or between parents and children. It can also be used in classes. I can imagine the passionate arguments the students will have going after this or that point in the film.
Take the play at face value and don't worry about the real person whose name and occupation they use. Think about what is put before you in the play and wrestle with it. Fascinating!
Movie Review: I did this show
Summary: 5 Stars
As an actor/producer who chose to do the play TAKING SIDES (on which this film is based) last May at the height of a new era of "post war" occupation by America, I feel I have particular insight into this product. I played Major Arnold, the bullish American who is so traumatized by the Holocaust brought on by the Germans that he is assigned to interrogate artists who stayed in Germany during the war.
Furtwangler is the focus of this investigation, as the most renouned conductor of the time. Furtwangler was wealthy, loved by Hitler as well as most Germans. You see, art and culture was big to Nazi life, and though Furwangler never joined the party and actually helped some Jewish musicians escape, he chose to stay in Germany and work. It is known that Hitler so loved him that there was a standing order to not touch him (he was on a list of "immortals" that were viewed as so important they got special treatment even in times of war and hardship.) Furtwangler was openly defiant to other Nazi officials, and they hated him.
LIke many Germans, they knew what the Nazis were up to only after the fact. Then they were somewhat trapped. Furtwangler admits to knowing the brutality.
And that's the hard part of this piece. There is no clear cut answer as to whom is more right in matters. And if done well, the audience understands both "Sides" of this story. Even if they feel stronger leanings towards one side over the other.
There are many parallels to some of the issues in today's current events that make this sampling of history 60 years ago, startling. History does indeed repeat itself in strange new ways.
No doubt if you are a liberal, you will feel sympathy for Furtwangler, and agree with him that art can be more powerful than politics, and even negate the horrors of the Holocaust.
If you are a Bush fan, you will no doubt find the tactics and mindset of Major Arnold to be on par with your views.
I am a liberal, who painfully, and proudly found the humanity and soul of Arnold each and every night and presented it to an audience.
The tragedy in all this is that each side always thinks it is right. Hitler thought he was right. Saddam thought he was right. Bush thinks he is right. Michael Moore thinks he is right.
And they all have compelling arguements to back up their beleif. It is up to each of us to reach into ourselves and figure out which side we come down on.