MovieChat Forums > Taking Sides (2002) Discussion > So... whose side did you take?

So... whose side did you take?

posted 20 years ago by C.S.Wood
22 replies | jump to latest

Surprised no one has asked this question yet.

Personally, I ended up seeing things from Furtwängler's side. Not that I think he was 100% innocent, but the Major's argument was pretty thin.

Also, what about the archive footage at the end of them film? It sort of looked like he wiped off his palm after shaking hands with Hitler. I can only assume that's the case, otherwise I don't know why they would choose to include it (and replay it twice).

"Action is how men express romance on film." -- Kurt Wimmer

[–] sebdan 20 years ago

I too, saw things from Furtwängler's perspective, although the film made him look innocent, which he was clearly not.

Glad to see depicted in the film Furtwängler's animosity toward "das Wunder" Karajan. Karajan - now there's the real Nazi...

[–] rhetoricalreply 20 years ago

if he wasn't innocent, what was he guilty of? cowardice? i think the most pertinent question asked by Keitels's character was never asked of the conductor but of his secretary - "If you didn't know what was happening to the Jews, why were you trying to protect them?" or words to that effect.
People sometimes find themselves in impossible positions, 'between a rock and a hard place'. From what the film showed me (and so, at this stage, I can only base my view on this and not other sources) it seems the composer was in a position where he knew what was happening to his fellow countrymen and was helpless to stop them. Naively maybe, selfishly perhaps, he went on conducting his music. Maybe he thought that music could save a few souls (I'm thinking "The Shawshank Redemption" here), that the beauty of his music could overcome all evil. It seems entirely probable, though, that he would have been a poster boy for the Nazi party, whether he'd refused to join or not. I don't know, I need to read around this subject, but from the film it looked like what little he could do, aside from poking Hitlers eye out, he did. Anything more would have been suicide, and what he managed to do WOULD have been suicidal for any normal man - his talent kept him alive.

[–] sebdan 20 years ago

He wasn't guilty of anything in particular, but if he truly believed in what he claimed in the film, then he would have left the country like so many others have done (not all Jews either). Based on what I know about him, he was anti-Semitic in general, but that didn't stop him to appreciate and even help Jewish individuals. I guess that, like all true great artists, he was somewhat paradoxical.
It is very difficult to assess from a latter historical perspective what the best course ought to have been for Furtwängler during those years, but we can still speculate on this film's obvious exoneration of Furtwängler's actions (and inactions).

[–] qkowlew 19 years ago

I look at Major.
He decides 'what Furtwängler has had to do in the past'.
I'm bored of this.
Note!
I don't talk about justice or trivial morale.
'Major is acting now like GESTAPO has acted. It's wrong way. He has to...'

And now I look at me.
Now I decide - what Major has had to do then.

Who am I? Why I can tell Major what to do?
Major is in past. In his world, in his time.
Conductor had been in his world, in his time.
I am in my world, in my time.

We are all Majors and conductors. From time to time, from country to country.

I know - every our actions may be justiced in future.
Future men. Look this film - and look at us.
And be carefull.

[–] the-way 19 years ago

I agree with your way of thinking about this kind of questions.
Our task today is rather trying to understand the best the "what, why and how" than taking sides.
For help : a very instructive tv program on french/german channel "arte" saturday 18 at 22:35 (french hour) about Furtwängler for the 50th anniversary of his death (11/30/54). Connections between Germany, History and Music in the conductor's life, and how he chose to take sides with Art

[–] alnc524 19 years ago

I havent seen this movie yet. Is it good ? or some sort of a "Pianist meets Schindler's List" ripoff?

[–] C.S.Wood 19 years ago

I havent seen this movie yet. Is it good ? or some sort of a "Pianist meets Schindler's List" ripoff?

I'd say more like Schindler's List meets Law & Order (and leaning more towards Law & Order).

I'd say it was good. Not great, but worth at least 1 viewing.

"Action is how men express romance on film." -- Kurt Wimmer

[–] Hattrem-4 19 years ago

The man whose hand Furtwängler shakes is not Hitler.

[–] ladybug67401 19 years ago

I saw it from both sides. Furtwangler was between a rock and a hard place, and did what he had to do to survive. I also think the major was way off the mark as to what motivated Furtwangler to stay. I took him at his word, and I understand perfectly his reluctance to abandon his country.

OTOH, the major was present at the liberation of one of the concentration camps--I forget which one--and it was made plain in the movie that he was having nightmares about it.

Everyone keeps condemning the major for his bad behavior towards Furtwangler, but it seems everyone keeps forgetting just what the Reich that Furtwangler served did, not only to the 6 million Jews, but to Gypsies, gays and other "undesirables." Where is the outrage over THAT? Furtwangler put a pretty face on the Reich; the only reason I don't condemn him for that is because he had no clue he was doing it. But the major had a right to his anger and outrage at the Nazi regime and those who served it.

I think what made this film great is that nothing got whitewashed, except maybe the atrocities committed by the Allies against the Germans, such as Dresden. Considering the Germans began the war (just who invaded Poland, France, etc. etc. etc?) and started bombing the Allies first (London, hello?), I find it hard to care, but I know that just because the Germans committed evil acts did not give us leave to do so.

[–] Glen16 18 years ago

I liked that the film presented both arguments with balance and asks demanding questions of the audience.

Nonetheless, I agree with the Major's position more than with Furtwangler. Furtwangler was acting as a symbol for the Nazi party and they were using him partially to legitimise their rule. While he may have been niave about it, I see little excuse for his actions. He was acting as a symbol, which is how the people would have seen him, for a regime which was currently killing millions of Jews and other undesirables.

While I don't see him as a criminal, and he did good practical work by helping individual jews, he is morally culpible for effectively supporting the regime to further his career. While active resistance may not be a moral necessity in this situtation, particulary with less than full knowledge of the atrocities as they were carried out, he clearly lent the regime his gravitas and popular appeal and that is very hard to forgive.

[–] leex1214 18 years ago

The real crux of the issue is, who bore responsibility for the Nazi regime, who was innocent, and for those deemed guilty, what should be their punishment, if any? Should any mitigating circumstances be considered, like in Furtwangler's case, the overwhelming humanity of his art, or his generosity to persecuted musicians? If we condemn even a man such as Furtwangler, are we seeking justice or revenge? Is there a difference? To my mind, there are no simple answers, in the sense that you could provide some automatic criteria to decide guilt or innocence. Because of that, I sided with the character of Furtwangler here much more than the major, because the major doesn't see the complexity of the issue: he only sees good vs. evil in the clearest possible terms. As a side note, knowing a fair amount about Furtwangler's actual "de-nazification" process, the movie was VERY historically innacurate and should be taken purely as fiction. Anyone who wants to know the details, and the behind-the-scenes political machinations, should check www.furtwangler.org, which has a long, thorough article about this period in his life.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 18 years ago

I was on Furtwangler's side from the very get-go. I was disgusted to see a US officer harassing an orchestral conductor for the "crime" of practicing his craft in Nazi Germany rather than going after real war criminals.

If we apply the same logic to the USSR, then Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Khachaturian are also "criminals." Since it's obvious they're not, the case of Furtwangler is little more than smarmy allied officials flexing their muscles.

[–] PmW 17 years ago

I only saw the file just yesterday on German TV.

Also, what about the archive footage at the end of them film? It sort of looked like he wiped off his palm after shaking hands with Hitler. I can only assume that's the case, otherwise I don't know why they would choose to include it (and replay it twice).

Very interesting question, I was about to ask the same...

While Hattrem-4 is right, and it didn't look like Hitler himself, it was probably some important Nazi. I think this footage was included because the director wanted us to believe that Furtwängler didn't like the Nazis. But in reality you cannot know why he wiped his hand. While it might have been disgust for Nazis in general and what they did, perhaps he just hated that particular person -- but perhaps that guy just had very sweaty hands...