Very end....SPOILER


Someone has already posted a comment like this but why does it repeat the movement of the handkerchief at the very end? Is it Hitler he shakes hands with? Is it something to do with the fact that everyone was talking about him holding the baton/conductor stick thing and in the clip he was not holding it? Or was it indeed that he was wiping his hand off after touching hitlers?

reply

The clip hasn't, as far as I can tell, been doctored - he really does/did keep passing the hanky back and forth. The reaons it's shown - as I read it - is indeed to show that he did not have a baton in his hand and thus everyone lied about it. True, he didn't salute either, but I think the point being made was that he embellished his anti-Nazi actions

reply

The clip hasn't, as far as I can tell, been doctored - he really does/did keep passing the hanky back and forth. The reaons it's shown - as I read it - is indeed to show that he did not have a baton in his hand and thus everyone lied about it. True, he didn't salute either, but I think the point being made was that he embellished his anti-Nazi actions


That is completely wrong, and I have no idea where you might have "read it".

The archive footage shows Furtwangler shaking Gobbels hand and then immediately afterwards discreetly wiping his hand with a handkerchief. It only happens the one time, and the same footage is repeated.

The screenwriter Ronald Harwood was a little disappointed with the repeated footage as he felt it tipped the scales in Furtwangler's favour and doesn't leave it ambiguous enough. He said that in including that scene the director is "Taking Sides" just a little bit, which is not what he hoped the film to achieve.

reply

I was using the term 'read' in the sense of 'understand', when watching a film. However, after posting I *read* other material which confirms what you say re the hand-wiping; my mistake in not realising it was Goebels, for one thing. Interesting point re the repeated footage, which in retrospect I also wondered more about - agree, pity they felt the need to do that.

reply

Interesting point re the repeated footage, which in retrospect I also wondered more about - agree, pity they felt the need to do that.


Yes it is a shame. One of the great things about the original play is how divided the audience can often be after seeing it. Furtwangler's artistic defence to Major Arnold's moralistic questioning creates a great talking point, and the audience really does "take sides".

The inclusion of the clip - on a loop - seems to be the director playing judge and influencing us the jury.

reply

I think the end is an extremely important element added in the play-to-movie transfer. The play was fiction based on fact. The end clip was fact: he turned away and wiped his hand off after Goebbels shook it. And his face shows obvious disdain. This is done to counterbalance all the excellent arguments Harvey Keitel's character gives. But I agree the title "Taking Sides" should have been changed for the film. In any case it's an excellent film.

Play the game existence 'til the end...of the beginning...

reply

The original footage is doctored - the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda spliced the long shot and the close-up of Goebbels and Furtwängler shaking hands to make it look longer. Furtwängler does not look pleased to see Goebbels and his reply to whatever Goebbels says appears to be a very curt "Danke!", before he wipes his hands.

reply

I must have missed the very end. I followed the film up to the point the major said Furtwängler you can go and we will call you if needed again, or something like that. Then he (the major) opened the windows and turned the vent on, showing that he felt warm and told Lt. David Wills to go for coffee. That's the very last I have seen from the film. Was it the very end, or have I missed something?

Thank you in advance for your help.

reply