My husband and I discussed this movie into the wee hours of the morning. We were very impressed by Harvey Keitel's performance in particular, (a "you can't handle the truth" moment!). Liked the way the characters were representative of people at the time, i.e. Keitel's character representing world outrage and disgust, determined to not only be "seen to be just" but to exact justice; Bleibtreu's supposed Jewish apathy, his admiration for Furtwangler impossible to conceal; Skargard's naivety in believing the purity of art could be kept separate from politics; Emmy's guilt; the second violinist admitting opportunities were opened up for his inclusion into the orchestra. Loved the end narrative and particularly last bit before the credits ran.

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

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

One of the worst movies I've had to sit through. It's ostensibly about the WWII-era German conductor Wilhem Furtwengler; it's really just a take on the themes raised by Szabó in his earlier Mephisto.Like Mephisto, this movie is terribly overacted and everything is contrived to let the principal characters expound on (what are presumably) Szabó's issues with artists and Nazis.There's no attempt to tell a story; to show any inner conflict, human frailty or weakness. It's just a podium for Szabó to rant and talk and rant.How bad is it really? Bad enough that even two talented actors - Skarsgard and Keitel - can't do anything in it.Ever been stuck at a party with someone who needs to explain in detail his theory of how the current US president has ties to the healthcare industry? Or how the car companies buy up inventions that would increase fuel economy? Yup, this is about as interesting.