Taking Sides (2001) User Reviews

A complicated historical episode

[weed_harper · 8/10 · 7 February 2006]

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.

A Good But Not Great Exploration of the Nature of Good in Times of Evil

[lawprof · 8/10 · 19 September 2003]

There are two constituencies for director Istvan Szabo's "Taking Sides," a story of famed conductor (and not so well known composer) Wilhelm Furtwangler's accountability for his actions in Germany and occupied Europe during World War II. One is a relatively small coterie of devoted classical music lovers, few of whom are old enough to have ever seen the maestro conduct but who know his penetratingly brilliant conducting through recordings. The larger audience is attracted to unending and largely unresolvable issues of good versus evil and the degree to which one is responsible for the atrocities committed by a society but not by the individual who serves some of its needs.

Wilhelm Furtwangler was a world-heralded conductor before World War II. Along with a handful of European podium titans - Mengelberg, Walter, Klemperer and Toscanini - these men in essence controlled classical music, both with regard to concert programming and the rapidly developing technological advances of the phonograph disc.

With the rise of fascism, some conductors, composers and musicians fled the grasp of tyrannous regimes. A few, like Toscanini, had little choice (a beating administered by Italian thugs as payment for his refusing to honor Mussolini from the stage was a fair indication that New York offered better prospects). Walter and Klemperer decamped, their careers boosted by their strong anti-Nazi stances. Mengelberg collaborated, essentially ruining his career when victory came (his is a complex case still debated).

Furtwangler, with many opportunities to leave, didn't. Indeed his conducting during the Third Reich was without doubt the hallmark of German classical music during those twelve indescribably dark years. Why didn't he leave? He knew that culture was being obliterated by the stroke of a pen or a dictator's speech. Mendelssohn, whose works he had often performed, was now a non-existent presence in German music. Beethoven and Bruckner, composers Furtwangler loved, were deified for political purposes. Did he believe his presence would preserve essential elements of the German music heritage until a better day?

"Taking Sides" addresses Furtwangler's role and focuses, with flashbacks, on an American major's investigation - shrill, unsophisticated, uncultured American Philistine at its best (worst?) - of Furtwangler's role. A former insurance investigator called to the colors, Harvey Keitel's major is effective as the kind of American officer that many of us have encountered overseas, usually with embarrassment. He is a tenacious bulldog gripping on to a prey he can never truly understand. And he doesn't want to anyway. His savage, histrionic pursuit of Furtwangler blurs the portrayal of the complex conductor.

Stellan Skarsgard is Furtwangler, alternately triumphant on the podium, disturbed by inner doubts and mortifyingly humiliated by the major's treatment which would have been appropriate for investigating a Gestapo officer or a concentration camp commandant. The rest of the cast acts well but their supportive and in some instances distractive roles add little.

A romance between an idealistic American lieutenant who proclaims he is a man of culture before he is a Jew and a winsome fraulein is unrealistic, is irrelevant, not even interesting. "Taking Sides" is a somewhat less sophisticated descendant of Spencer Tracy and Maximillian Schell's blazing encounter in "Judgment at Nuremberg" Schell, acting the part of a judge in Nazi Germany who slowly accepted the abnegation of the rule of law, was forced to confront his true contribution to evil. Spencer Tracy saw to that and, in any event, Harvey Keitel is no Tracy.

Furtwangler in the film is never suspected, much less accused of any crime other than being a championed symbol of German "kultur." That was not a war crime and in reality figures like Furtwangler and composer Richard Strauss (another difficult case) were processed through denazification proceedings fairly quickly and usually were cleared. Some were not (Mengelberg, for example).

The problem with "Taking Sides," beyond its simplistic polarization, is that it does not address, and perhaps could not, the complexity of the role of classical music and musicians in the ideology of Nazism. Furtwangler may not have known of extermination camps and he certainly hurt no Jews (indeed, the record is clear that he saved some Jewish musicians as did Mengelberg) but he must internally have abhorred the Nazi extinction of music by composers such as Mendelssohn and contemporary composers whose works were denounced as "entartete musik" (degenerate music). And more than a few of the composers in the latter class were murdered during the regime. Furtwangler definitely knew that composers and musicians disappeared with no forwarding addresses.

Keitel and Skarsgard act out a morality inquisition that does provoke the viewer to think and question but the ultimate issue, should Furtwangler have fled, is irritatingly vague. Did Furtwangler "take sides" in any meaningful sense? Did he stay beyond the point where leaving was an option? Maybe. Can we, should we, expect composers and conductors to be like Leonard Bernstein, outspoken advocates on every issue? Is that fair?

German conductors had powerful patrons and without doubt Furtwangler's brilliant conducting served the interests of both the leaders and audiences that hungered, through bombings and the approach of defeat, for some relief through music. I have a recording of Furtwangler conducting Beethoven's magisterial Ninth Symphony in Berlin where anti-aircraft fire and bombs can be heard. What did it take for Londoners and Berliners to listen to great music at their imminent mortal peril? "Taking Sides" could have explored the almost mystical relationship between Furtwangler and his audiences. It doesn't really do that although the adulation in which he was held is depicted.

A very fine biography by Shirakawa, "The Devil's Musician," largely rescues Furtwangler from accusations of sympathy with the Nazi regime and he clearly was a much finer fellow than his young rival, Herbert von Karajan. Von Karajan was destined to be a great conductor but he was also a first-class careerist who joined the Nazi party to advance his prospects (and lied about it for years until confronted with the evidence).

Anyone seriously interested in classical music during the Third Reich must read Douglas Kater's three-volume, well-written and extensively researched history of that period. For now, "Taking Sides" is good but not great drama. Selections of music by Bruckner and Beethoven as well as by Glenn Miller and George Gershwin (the latter two decidedly not Nazi favorites) are prominent. Hopefully the movie will impel those unfamiliar with an unsurpassed interpreter of wonderful music to seek out readily available and gripping recordings.

7/10.

shaking hands with the Devil

[dromasca · 7/10 · 10 August 2008]

One of the characters who understands best the great conductor Furtwängler who is the principal hero of 'Taking Sides' is the Soviet colonel Dymshitz. Dymshitz is a curator at the Hermitage museum in his civil life, and besides being a man of culture he also understands too well the compromises an artist must make in order to continue to survive as an artist and as a human being under a dictatorship.

This is actually one of the central themes of the work of director Istvan Szabo. In 'Mephisto' and 'Hanusses' he was also dealing with the Nazi era, but by telling WWII stories the Hungarian director does nevertheless talk also about all dictatorships, or specifically the Communist rule he knew directly.

The action of the film happens after the war, when Wilhelm Furtwängler, one of the greatest directors of the century stands on trial in a denazification tribunal for his cooperation with the Nazi regime. Despite many of the great musicians of the era he did not live Germany, he played for the Nazi dignitaries in Jews-free orchestras, and his opposition to the Nazi regime is unclear. He was not a Nazi party member, and he intervened to save lives of Jewish musicians, but yet was used a propaganda tool until the very end of the war.

The balance of the movie lies in the balance of the superb acts of the two principal actors. Harvey Keitel plays the American prosecutor major Arnold, while Wilhelm Furtwängler is played by the Sweidish Stellan Skarsgård. Arnold is the opposite of Furtwängler in almost any plane. To his moral superiority enhanced (maybe not necessarily) by filmed reports from the death camps is opposed Furtwängler's ambiguity and doubts, but his rudimentary culture is no match for the European refinement of the director. Keitel gives a strong act, maybe a too strong one, as his rudeness opposed to the doubts and maybe remorse of the German seem to give to the musician a postume and probably not deserved absolution.

The last scene shows Furtwängler living the building where the interrogation happened in the sounds of Beethoven's Fifth. The director switches to a real filmed concert with the same music, at the end of which Furtwängler shares hands with a Nazi dignitary (may have been Goebels, the Nazi minister of propaganda). The he is shown (twice, once in close plan) wiping his hand as in some kind of cleaning act. The question remains if a handkerchief is enough to clean somebody who shook hands with the Devil.

One of Keitel's greatest performances.

[denisecheryl · 7 August 2004]

This is a very moving film--it examines so many issues, The Holocaust, the third Reich, the role of the arts, the moral dilemmas of artists. Stellan Skarsgaard was wonderful, but I was blown away by the power and sincerity of Harvey Keitel's performance. I've been a Keitel fan since forever, and it seems that his range and talent has just deepened. Perhaps the film is correct in implying that Furtwangler did collaborate with the Nazis, and unfortunately could not keep the realms of music and politics separate as he would have wished. Perhaps criticizing him for not leaving Germany was unfair. I compare Furtwangler to Richard Wagner. Wagner wrote the most incredibly beautiful music, which became the theme music of the Third Reich, and was himself a virulent anti-Semite. Can that music be appreciated for its own sake,without all its negative associations? Keitel's performance expressed the outrage of Holocaust victims

Makes me feel apologetic to be American

[brucekuehn · 6/10 · 17 June 2022]

I SO disagree with many other writers here. Where in this movie is there anything thought provoking? The Harvey Keitel character is so one dimensional! I totally hated him. The Soviet counterpart is the more sympathetic character. Even the native Germans assigned to work with the American can't stand him. There is no balance in this film. Furtwängler, the brilliant symphony conductor, is berated, belittled and totally disrespected by a complete uncultured boob representing the US. There could have been some struggle between philosophies or a deeper look at guilt, but this movie was shallow and unsatisfying. Better to just read Wikipedia on Furtwängler and save your time. A musician that is trying to save what he can of hundreds of years of musical culture from destruction by the Nazis deserves better. Some good acting but my 6 is really way too kind.

thought provoking story, delicate showmanship and excellent acting

[jozsefbiro · 9/10 · 27 July 2002]

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!

70% Keitel, 25% Skarsgård, and 100% drama

[=G= · 7/10 · 22 May 2004]

In "Taking Sides", Keitel is a U.S. Army Major in Berlin after WWII. His task as a denazification inquisitor is to separate the populous into black hats, white hats, and gray hats: In particular, one gray hat symphony orchestra conductor, Skarsgård. The film, which bears the ear marks of it's theatrical pedigree, focuses entirely on Keitel's investigation and interrogation of the conductor as it creates some serious dramatic moments which the principals dispatch in fine style. However, because of the esoteric nature of its content and the issues it examines (eg: separation of art and politics, etc.) "Taking Sides" will not likely have broad appeal and should be most appreciated by those into serious theatrical ensemble drama. It's worth noting that some potent parallels exist between "Taking Sides" and current events in Iraq which may make the film seem more poignant and contemporaneous. (B)

What side to take?

[Ell-4 · 10/10 · 10 September 2003]

I originally saw the stage play "Taking Sides" by Ronald Harwood on Broadway several years ago. This production starred Ed Harris as the interrogating officer Steve Arnold. The role of Dr. Wilhelm Furtwangler was played by a British actor who was magnificent and unfortunately I am unable to remember his name. The play was not a great success on Broadway for reasons I cannot explain.The entire drama was cast in the office of Captain Arnold.

I personally thought the play was great and the film even better. The reason being that the film was able to portray scenes of Post-war Nuremburg and some vivid concentration camp scenes. (not for the weak of heart) to make its point. Nevertheless as in the stage production, the most vivid scenes still took place in the office of Captain Arnold between him and Dr. Furtwangler. The film roles being played by Harvey Keitel and Stellan Skarsgård. Was the relationship cruel to a point of excess by Capt. Arnold? How true were Dr. Furtwangler's version of life during the Nazi regime. ---??? I wish I could give an answer even to myself--Therefore, no spoiler is possible.

The film raises disturbing questions about the relationship of arts and politics.

As a conclusion, since this was a film with two intensely powerful actors, I would hope to see one or both up for a well deserved Oscar award.

Definitely takes a side

[petra_ste · 7/10 · 4 October 2007]

Ironically, the main limit of Taking Sides is how it doesn't want viewers to choose which side to take - it's clear who the filmmakers side with.

Germany, World War II aftermath: Major Arnold (Harvey Keitel) investigates the involvement of famous conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler (Stellan Skarsgard) with the Nazis. As a tense confrontation between the two unravels, the movie focuses on the moral responsibility of intellectuals who supported the regime.

Furtwangler, we learn, used his authority to help several Jews and support the nation with his art; Arnold sees him as morally bankrupt, as he accepted the regime instead of openly condemning it.

Skarsgard is exceptional as Furtwangler, playing him as a dignified man who is at the same time humiliated by his plight and proud of his work. Keitel is a great actor, but he is saddled here with a character written as boorish and one-dimensional. The movie obviously sides with Furtwangler - fair enough, but, to make sure viewers agree, the Major is painted in a very unflattering light and comes across as a straw man. It's a cheap shot for an ambitious script.

Still, Taking Sides juggles with important questions and the epilogue is powerful, with a broken Furtwangler descending a staircase in an empty building while Beethoven's Fifth plays in the background, and then footage of the real Furtwangler who seems to be wiping his hands with a handkerchief after shaking them with the Nazi authorities.

6,5/10

This is the most rewarding exploration of guilt and innocence since Dead Man Walking, and provides a feast of provocative food for the mind, interlaced with stunning musical interludes.

[marclar · 10/10 · 30 November 2002]

I loved everything about this movie. I forgave it's visual staginess including the unreal scenes of bombed-out Berlin seen through the windows, because what was taking place in the foreground was so intensely engaging and gripping. Based on a true story, and set at the time of the Nuremberg trials following WWII, Taking Sides is the tale of US Denazification investigator, Major Steve Arnold's (Harvey Keitel) mission to establish the guilty association of renowned Berlin conductor, Dr. Wilhelm Furtwangler (Stellan Skarsgard) with the Nazis. When other artists left Germany under the Third Reich, Furtwangler stayed on to become Hitler's favourite, conducting his orchestra at the Nurenberg Rally and at Hitler's birthday. Yet he had become a hero to the German people, because of his famous refusal to give the Nazi salute to Hitler himself after the birthday performance; as well as his reputation for assisting the escape from Germany of several Jewish musicians. In a relentless confrontation with Furtwangler and his defenders, Arnold casts an unblinking light on the common human motives - fear and personal ambition - behind Furtwangler's 'heroism' - and behind the inaction of the innumerable German people who claimed ignorance as a justification for their inaction in the face of Nazi evil. Everyone in Germany, it seems, hid Jews and assisted their escape. But what were they hiding Jews from, what was it they were protecting Jews from, asks Arnold, if they did not know what was happening? It is a universal question that confronts each of us, as viewers, for our every failure to take action in the face of injustice. Yet Furtwangler's defence - that art must be above politics, and that his music was was needed by his people to remind them of the sublime possibilities of the human spirit - finds passionately sympathetic support from Arnold's own young assistants, Jewish American, Lt. David Wills (Moritz Bleibtreu), and Emmi Graube (Birgit Minichmayr). How can an outsider possibly know what it was like? asks Emmi of Arnold. What right do you have to judge who was right and who was wrong? A complex dilemma with a complex resolution, an array of rich characterisations and splendid musical interludes combine to make this one of the most deeply rewarding cinematic experiences possible to the idea-famished mind.

Tries Too Hard to Be Deep

[ArchStanton1862 · 6/10 · 4 July 2011]

The true problem with this film is that it locks onto an interesting topic and then squanders it by repeating the same case over and over. It compounds this problem by thinking itself deep. The basic question is whether the conductor deserves to be allowed to continue his work given that he was famous under the Nazis. The answer to that is clearly 'yes' and at no point in the film do they accuse him of doing anything that could be considered a crime. Even if he had been close to Hitler that wouldn't have been a crime unless he did something with it. And it's quite clear he didn't even like the man so what's the point? There is no point at which any of the evidence, or indeed the accusations, have any real bite. His only crime was in not taking a stand against Hitler. How can it be a crime to not get yourself killed? It's just silliness. It seems to be trying to rope all Germans into this question. How could they do nothing to stop this man? Yet it never goes into that question except superficially. The only two characters of any significance are the Major and the musician and both of them represent opposite and boring extremes. Skarsgard comes off the best since his character feels completely noble and pure which puts off the Major only slightly more than it puts off me. He doesn't seem to be a particularly good man, but no law has ever been able to legislate that all people must be good. It is at least an interesting performance. Keitel goes over the top and makes the Major utterly unsympathetic in a boring way. He does nothing but bully people and the only interesting thing about it is how he seems so shocked when people don't think the same way he does. It seems like they were going for an emotion vs. reason, rage vs. acceptance, low-class vs. culture thing, but all the themes are left undeveloped and unexplored. A real shame because the premise shows potential.

Questioning the motives of those in power.

[dl-roberts · 9/10 · 18 March 2006]

Harvey Keitel plays Major Steve Arnold, a small man in insurance, from New York. Stellan Skarsgård plays Furtwängler, a genius who was loved and courted by the Nazis.

The Major pursues Furtwangler like a rabid dog, determined to show that that Furtwangler was guilty of something.Why didn't Furtwangler leave when he had the chance? Did he seek out accolades from the devil?

Why is Major Arnold so Angry? It it the anger of a small man who feels spat upon by life, suddenly given the chance of bring down someone once so High and Mighty?

FurtWangler is aloof, distant, full of easy platitudes about the redemptive quality of Art. Major Arnold is mean and streetwise, quick to attack and condemn those who he does not understand.

Who is in the wrong? In the end does it mean anything to believe you are right? In whose eyes anyway? This film asks some difficult questions about how we perceive ourselves and others, how we question our most basic motives. Very Good.

Very difficult not to side with the view of wholeheartedly recommending it.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 6 March 2012]

Taking Sides plays out in the last days, for a solid forty-five years, of Germany's existence as a unified country the aftermath of World War Two, and it centres in on a fierce tryst between an American who is a bully; aggressive and enjoys vaudeville and that of a relatively humble German composer whose life had been dedicated to classical music; appears humble but is suspected of being a Nazi. István Szabó's film is a wonderful, mostly dialogue driven piece, which in spite of rarely getting out of the office belonging to that of its central American character, takes us on a gritty adventure as the fate of one man's life hangs in the balance and the reputation of another's hangs additionally so.

The film begins with a quite wonderful depiction of a full orchestra playing a classical piece to a silent crowd, but as we track and weave our way around the majesty of the location within which they play, it becomes apparent higher members of Germany's Second World War era Nazi party are in attendance and are enjoying as much as we are – the film's soundtrack dipping in pitch as the reveal arrives. The idea of Nazism lurking amidst what is, on the surface, elegant and quite beautiful goes hand in hand with what the film essentially goes on to depict; specifically, the conductor orchestrating said performance and the apparent ties he has with the German party of said time in spite of the fact surface characteristics are what they are. The war will later end, with an air raid ruining this particular performance, and a number of unseen historical events unfolding throughout the world, as we know, go on to bring about the downfall of the Third Reich thus paving way for the arrival of the Allies and their setting up of base camps all over the ruined nation.

Enter Harvey Keitel's American Major, Steve Arnold; a man charged with investigating those whose role in Germany's European reign of Fascism were often enough to make a difference but were often too what they were in their nature to occupy the proverbial radar. Arnold was an insurance investigator before the war, so investigative procedure and worming out the truth the man's speciality with these assets predominant in his life up to now. Whilst on the blunt end of a superior's exposition, he watches footage over an old projector of The Final Solution in action, although does not flinch; his entry to what will be his office for the remainder of his time in Germany timed with that of the American flag going up and a group of German children running over offering goods and services as if in some sort of debt – the guard is changing as is whom the predominant force are. He works with Birgit Minichmayr's Emmi and Moritz Bleibtreu's former soldier, David Willis; two people brought in on a secretarial basis but whose own bond actually comes to form a substantial an often softer, refreshing pit-stop alternative to the predominant office set berating.

The man he's asked to interrogate and suss out the true one-time identity of is a composer named Wilhelm Furtwängler, played by Stellan Skarsgård. Furtwängler, being a composer, you might say is used to driving performances of his own; keeping cool when the centre of attention and generally doing a good job in controlling what's around him. Here, he will come up against someone who has already torn apart and done his job with a handful of Furtwängler's orchestra, thus must now rely on more than the fact he has already been cleared of Nazism under another jurisdiction. The members of Furtwängler's orchestra speak highly of him when interviewed by Arnold, and in a film all about the perception of someone and an individual's true nature, we recall the dishevelled and somewhat sleepy look of the man during that opening when he conducted through the air raid and wonder if their claims are indeed as authentic as they seem.

Above all else, Keitel does a superb job with his role; a man who has often played unlikeable people but whose tales we find ourselves drawn toward - here, he plays a bit of a bully and a bit of a boor, but is essentially a member of an Allied force attempting to wedge out those guilty of the things we, the audience, freely observed earlier on in the found footage session as those responsible for rather shocking manoeuvres are sought out to be brought to justice. Keitel's role is somewhat reminiscent to that of what he did in Jane Campion's Holy Smoke, from two years previously, in that he is a big; brash; booming; charismatic all-American who's called into town to cause someone specific to 'crack' into reverting to what they were prior to, what superiors deem to have been, selling their soul. He, like everyone involved in the production, deserve praise.

A movie which missed completely its purpose

[jvdesuit1 · 5/10 · 18 April 2014]

I give 5 to the movie just for the sake of the interpretation which is of course outstanding. But as far as the script is concerned this movie misses the point.

I don't know who were the guys in charge of the hearings when Fürtwängler was prosecuted. But I do hope they were not such stupid, uncultured guys like the major in the movie. The Wikipedia paper about the movie gives two views of the critics of this movie as follows:

Roger Ebert found the movie "both interesting and unsatisfying. The Keitel performance is over the top, inviting us to side with Furtwängler simply because his interrogator is so vile. There are maddening lapses, as when Furtwängler's rescue of Jewish musicians is mentioned but never really made clear. But Skarsgård's performance is poignant; it has a kind of exhausted passivity, suggesting a man who once stood astride the world and now counts himself lucky to be insulted by the likes of Major Arnold."

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle finds that the movie's promise to provide a balanced argument "goes unrealized, and all we're left with is the spectacle of an idiot bullying a genius. Harvey Keitel's performance as the smug, self-satisfied major is terribly miscalculated, unless he intended for us to loathe the spectacle of a small, stupid man glorying in his sudden power. That's possible. Stellan Skarsgård plays Furtwängler with an air of exhaustion that seems a generous attempt to justify the script's weakness, that the conductor doesn't defend himself vigorously enough. Of the two men, it's the major who acts more like a Nazi."

I think they resume very well the great errors of this film. I doubt any judge would act like this and pretend to try to do a fair inquest. It doesn't make sense.

The director and his scriptwriter had many documents to help them build a credible and authentic account of what happened and they just missed it.

In conclusion: astounding interpretation for a very poor scenario

a thoughtful, superbly argued work

[barry-85 · 11 November 2001]

This is a clever film, which would work equally well on radio as it is essentially a disputation. The arguments for and against Furtwangler's acquiescence are impartially put and it is a thought-provoking piece. Yes, at the end of the day he was a passive collaborator, who survived by compromising. Who of us, though, would have known when, or if , to leave our home country? Easy to judge from outside. Doeas his saving of some, a few, Jews make up for playing for Hitler and compromising his principles throughout the war? See the movie and listen to the case for both sides. A compelling and worthwhile 90 minutes of good script and some good performances too. All four leads did well.

Collective Responsibility is a Very Dangerous Thing.

[beckr1 · 7/10 · 23 March 2023]

This movie kind of gives you and inside look into the music world of that time. It also delves into the question of how much responsibility the German people should take for the Holocaust. Being that Furtwangler was on the political "inside" as far as Nazi inner workings, much more so than the general public, this movie asks some really good questions. As a classical musician, Furtwangler is held in high regard as among the greatest conductors of all time, however, the Harvey Keitel character really never lets up on making Furtwangler take some responsibility. I just love the reference to Herbert von Karajan, Furtwangler's successor, and how enraged Furtwangler gets when referencing Little K and saying that Karajan was an actual member of the Nazi party. Still, Keitel is really over the top and the dialogue, at times, is quite stupid.

Amazing - a film that makes you think!

[tonyhic · 10/10 · 24 November 2002]

Be warned. This is not a frothy feel-good movie, not by any measure, unless what makes you feel good is a complex examination of the human psyche.

Fantastic acting, powerful story. Harvey Keitel stands out as the man who thinks he is punishing evil, but from many perspectives seems to be inflicting it at the same time.

If you have a brain, see it.

Great acting, but unfortunately not visually appealing

[Erik_Surewaard · 6/10 · 20 February 2024]

This movie is inspired by the true events of the denazification process of a famous orchestra conductor named Wilhelm Furtwangler.

The movie includes quite a significant amount of dialogue between the two famous actors Harvey Keitel (investigator / prosecutor frome the US army) and Stellan Skarsgard (Furtwangler). These discussions thereby take mainly place situated in one room. Attending are also two other people, a lieutenant from the US Army and a transcriber. Remarkable is that the latter is the daughter of a german Wehrmacht colonel whom - close to the end of WW2 - was executed because of his involvement in an assassenation attempt on Hitler.

This movie has an average IMDb rating of 7.1 stars when this review is written. I personally score this movie at 6.0/10, resulting in an IMDb rating of 6 stars. Despite the great actors, I found that the story does not warrant a feature length movie. Because of it taking place mainly in one room, I found it also not that visually appealing. There a movies that are way better in showing the post-war investigation. This movie is however a great watch if you have a special interest in the denazification process.

A fantastic film & not to be missed.

[geast-2 · 10/10 · 14 February 2009]

A thoughtful film well worth seeing and trying to accept as 'happening' as you view it. ( one tends to want to take sides with what may well be wasted empathy - though of course one actually cannot know the final outcome.) The finest moment of ultra clarity making the entire film both entertaining, of worth and full of great depth, comes during the end-of-film credits & is LIVE ACTUAL ARCHIVE FOOTAGE. Don't take you eyes off the black and white archive film running behind the end-of-film credits that the director repeats (plays TWICE for you,so that you especially do NOT miss it) as this footage gives you the truth about Furtwängler and how he felt about the (former) present regime in Germany.

Taking Furtwängler's side

[EdgarST · 9/10 · 2 May 2004]

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.'

Powerful Confrontation, Difficult Questions

[Danusha_Goska · 8/10 · 14 May 2007]

"Taking Sides" powerfully depicts difficult questions most thinking people have had: who is really responsible for genocide? Are all Germans responsible for Nazism? (All Rwandans ... Cambodians ... ? This list could continue forever until we are all in the prisoner's dock.) How is it that highly cultured people, who loved Beethoven, could commit inhuman crimes? Harvey Keitel plays an American officer in post-World-War-Two Germany who is given the job of dealing with Wilhelm Furtwangler, perhaps the best classical music conductor in the world. The question is, can Furtwangler be associated with the crimes of Nazism? Harvey Keitel and Stellan Skarsgaard give equally riveting performances, but Skarsgaard stands out because he depicts a type that films don't often focus on: a man so dedicated to his high art that he comes across as an extraterrestial when confronted with concrete concerns. His performance was certainly Oscar worthy.

In a scene as heartwrenching as any I've seen in any film, Furtwangler attempts to present his carefully prepared philosophy of art. To say that he is rudely interrupted is an understatement. I cried for him, and for humanity.

Keitel depicts a driven man who wants justice, but who arrived too late to exact it. Nazism's victims are already dead. He can't save them. And, so, he embarks on a Quixotic quest to bring down a man whose relationship to Nazism is questionable.

Keitel's character wants desperately for the world to be painted in black and white, with heroes on one side and devils -- a word he uses -- on the other. At a key moment, his secretary, whose WW II family history is pertinent, makes a key disclosure that might have served to widen and deepen his view of the world. But this is a man who does not want a wider or deeper view of the world. He wants justice, something others might call revenge.

Moritz Bleibtreu, Birgit Minichmayr and Ulrich Tukur are poignant, heart breaking, and thought provoking in smaller roles.

Kudos to Ronald Harwood for his merciless script. Like characters on screen, I often wanted to take a break, to say, "This is just too much." The script falls like a hammer on very difficult issues.

Dark propaganda gem

[dusan-22 · 1/10 · 25 August 2009]

As for this film, I was only impressed by the fact that Hollywood still makes its propaganda pieces made with Frank Capra style, even though amazed by Harvey Keitels and Stellan Skarsgård's acting, beautiful as always. I can tell the same on the following roles of Moritz Bleibtreu and Birgit Minichmayr, fantastic acting talents. I believe that Istvan Sabo made a truly well developed theater piece screened for all times. Harvey's and Stellan's monologues are just cream on the whole post war cake served, whatever taste is. What really went beyond control if you ask me is American feature film voice and picture of God, judge and jury represented so well by Harvey Keitel. Most monstrous hypocrisy served by the state film policy, whose country didn't even liberate Europe from the Nazis but just came to get their political piece of cake (almost) after the Soviet triumph, is sooo pathetic. The worse is when the mass murder come to judge the serial killer and then find his brother to play the law with him once the serial killer is eliminated by someone else. I guess everybody has to play their roles. Citizens of the country whose ancestors exterminated over 80 million native Americans just to get their land is judging Nazi Germany for exterminating 6 million Jews that were left to die until the interest didn't move their troops to Europe. Officer of the country that killed over 6 million civilians only in Vietnam and Korean war together talks about responsibility of an artist? What about the responsibility of John Wayne, glorified figure of the greatest civilian massacre in human history? What about Barry Sadler and Merle Haggard the hippie hater whose music was encouraging US boys to throw napalm over Vietnamese women and children? Is napalm better than gas chambers of the Nazis? And what about "Birth of Nation" and D.W. Griffith? Isn't he the one of the greatest establishers of American feature film? D.W. Griffith the clan's man ... Well, examples are many, many of them probably worse than the poor attempt to make a plot for this film as nobody ever trialled these people and on contrary - they have been glorified until today. Pity for wasted talent. I will be what an art lover suppose to be when faces tyranny of evil according to this movie and will disregard positive vote. 0 out of 10.

Excellent and compelling adaptation of stage play

[YouRebelScum · 9/10 · 24 November 2003]

This is really an excellent film containing an Oscar-worthy performance from Stellan Skarsgard as the discredited German conductor Wilhem Furtwengler. Consistently thought-provoking and challenging, and beautifully shot, it's one of the most satisfying movie experiences I've had in a while. Makes Seabiscuit look like the limp, over-produced gunk it was.

Dressed in a little brief authority

[JamesHitchcock · 8/10 · 17 July 2008]

In 1946, Wilhelm Furtwängler, one of Germany's greatest musicians and the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, was put on trial before a denazification tribunal, even though he was a member of neither the German government nor the Wehrmacht. He was not accused of war crimes; indeed, he was not accused of any crimes in the normal meaning of the term. He was never a member of the Nazi Party, made little secret of his dislike for them and always refused to give the Nazi salute. He assisted several Jewish musicians to leave the country. The Allied authorities, however, were well aware of the symbolic importance of culture, especially music, in German life, and were determined to land a "big fish". Furtwängler was charged with supporting Nazism by remaining in Germany, performing at Nazi party functions and with making anti-Semitic remarks.

Furtwängler was eventually cleared of all these charges and allowed to resume his musical career, but even so he still remained suspect in many people's eyes. He was not, for example, allowed to conduct in America after the war. To me this has always seemed unfair given that there were other eminent musicians who were enthusiastic Nazis, such as his younger rival Herbert von Karajan, who actually joined the Nazi Party in his native Austria in 1933, at a time when that party was looked on with extreme disfavour by the country's authoritarian but anti-Nazi government. Even Arturo Toscanini, hailed as an anti-Fascist hero after he left Italy in 1931, was himself once a Fascist who in 1919 stood (unsuccessfully) as one of the party's parliamentary candidates.

Istvan Szabo also directed "Mephisto", another film about an artist (in that case an actor) who compromises with the Nazis in order to continue working in Germany. The theme may have some personal relevance for Szabo himself, as he worked in Hungary under the Communist regime. "Taking Sides", based upon Ronald Harwood's stage play, imagines Furtwängler's pre-trial interrogation by Major Steve Arnold, an American officer. Most of the film takes place in Arnold's office, an appropriately claustrophobic setting which perhaps betrays its origins in the theatre, although we also see shots of the ruins of Berlin outside. There is one very effective scene of a classical concert taking place in a ruined church.

Arnold is in many ways unsuitable for the task to which he has been assigned. He is a philistine, ignorant of classical music. He refers to Furtwängler as a "bandleader" and, when asked which is his favourite Beethoven symphony, replies "the eleventh". Upon being told that Beethoven only wrote nine he claims (unconvincingly) to have been joking. In civilian life he was an insurance investigator, and he has some similarities to the cynical character played by Edward G Robinson in "Double Indemnity", who automatically suspects all insurance claims of being fraudulent. (That film is briefly mentioned here). Arnold takes a strong dislike to Furtwängler, whom he suspects of being a fraud and a hypocrite, and bullies him mercilessly.

Furtwängler, however, does have three surprising allies, all of whom have perhaps more cause to hate the Nazis than Arnold does, Arnold's Russian counterpart Colonel Dymshitz, his young assistant Corporal David Wills (ne Weill), a German Jew forced to flee to the US from the Nazis, and his German secretary Emmi whose father was executed for his part in the plot to overthrow Hitler. Dymshitz, unlike Arnold, is a music lover; although he has seen his homeland devastated by the Nazi invasion, he has lived under Stalin and therefore understands the compromises that need to be made with a totalitarian regime. Wills and Emmi take objection to Arnold's bullying of Furtwängler, which remind them of Gestapo interrogation tactics.

There are two excellent performances in the leading roles. Stellan Skarsgard's Furtwängler is a saddened, disillusioned man, who has realised too late the evil of which his political masters were capable. Yet he defends his decision to remain in Germany as a champion of the humane, enlightened values of high culture, at a time when those values were under attack like never before, to continue playing the music of Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert at a time when the German people most sorely needed to hear it.

Harvey Keitel's Arnold is a classic example of the little man given too much power. Perhaps this type was best described by Shakespeare in "Measure for Measure", the man "dressed in a little brief authority" who "like an angry ape plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep". Some have complained that Harwood, Szabo and Keitel load the dice in Furtwängler's favour by making Arnold too unpleasant. Had he been less obnoxious his debating points might have carried more weight; as it is, his references to Auschwitz and Buchenwald seem no more than tasteless attempts to use the tragedy of the Holocaust to justify his own arrogance and ruthlessness.

In my view, however, the film does more than examine the moral complexities of Furtwängler's position. It also explores the moral complexities of the Allied position. The ruins of Berlin remind us of the ruins of other German and Japanese cities, such as Dresden and Hiroshima, and of the fact that not all wartime acts of brutality were committed by one side. Even those who serve democratic governments can abuse their authority; the denazification tribunals, in which the defendants had committed no crime but were accused of guilt by association with others and required to prove their innocence, can today be seen as a dress-rehearsal for McCarthyism. Although the film was made before the outbreak of the Iraq War, some may also see parallels with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. A first-class film which asks some troubling questions. 8/10

Keitel

[jrsumser · 2 June 2004]

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.