Film Review: Taking Sides

 "Taking Sides"

**** (out of ****)

Istvan Szabo's "Taking Sides" (2003) is a tale about art, politics, history, national identity and loyalty as well as morality. The film's title immediately informs us we are going to have to make a decision. Which side of the argument are we going to land on?

The argument concerns the relationship between all of these things - art and politics, history and identity. Should distinctions be made? Are all of these things separate? What should we do about filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein? Riefenstahl was a German director best known for making propaganda documentaries such as "Triumph of the Will" (1935) and "Victory of Faith" (1933). She claims to have never been a member of the Nazi party and was unaware of the Holocaust. Eisenstein was a filmmaker known for Soviet propaganda films including "Battleship Potemkin" (1925) and "Strike!" (1925). Although he wasn't always beloved by the Soviet government. Should we discard their work? "Potemkin" has been heralded as one of the greatest films ever made. Charlie Chaplin once said it was his favorite film. To the extent there is such a thing as "good propaganda" many praise the techniques Riefenstahl used in her documentaries.

Or take for example the real-life situation presented in "Taking Sides". German conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler (Stellan Skarsgard) was widely regarded as one of the world's greatest. However, during the Nazi regime he stood in Germany. Why did he stay? Was he a member of the Nazi party? Was he a Nazi sympathizer? Is it possible to separate the art from the artist? Can "bad people" produce great works of art?

Adding another delicious layer to all of this is the background of the movie's director, the great Hungarian filmmaker Istvan Szabo. Szabo stood in his homeland after the Communist took control of it. Even after the events of 1956. Szabo himself admitted to working as a spy for the Communist party. The relationship between art and politics and personal responsibility has always been a running theme in Szabo's work. Take for a example his most acclaimed film, "Mephisto" (1981) - a Faustian tale of an actor who makes a bargain with the Devil (the Nazi party) in order to achieve fame. All the while the actor proclaims, what can he do? He's only an actor. Or what about Szabo's film "Hanussen" (1988) about a real-life Jewish clairvoyant who claimed to predict the rise of the Nazi party but stood in Germany, building a relationship with the party. Szabo even made a film, "Meeting Venus" (1991) meant to use the orchestra as a metaphor for politics and Europe. Surely, "Taking Sides" was a personal film for Szabo. 

"Taking Sides" is as much about morality as it is politics. What was the moral responsibility of German citizens, especially artists, during the Nazi regime? Should they have all left the country? Is the fact they remained an indictment against them as humans and a clear indication of their own politics? Those that knew Furtwangler understood he was opposed to Hitler and the Nazi regime. Furtwangler may have been Hitler's favorite conductor but he was not a member of the Nazi party. Some say he helped protect Jews even though he made Anti-Semitic public statements. How could Furtwangler know what the party was up to? How could he have foreseen what was to come after 1933? He was only a conductor. An artist that firmly believed in the separation between art and politics.

"Taking Sides" is set in post-WWII Germany as an American solider, Major Steve Arnold (Harvey Keitel) is ordered to lead an investigation into Furtwangler prior to a denazification hearing - hearings meant to rid Germany of any remaining Nazi ideology. The agenda of the Major's investigation is made clear to him - find Furtwangler guilty. The Major must find the evidence to support his verdict - guilty until proven innocent. 

Intended to add shades of  moral gray are two characters assisting the Major - secretary Emmaline Straube (Birgit Minichmayr) - the daughter of a Nazi official who later joined the resistance - and Lt. David Wills (Moritz Bleibtreau) - a German-Jew who left Germany as a child to live in America with an uncle. Their Germanic pride however allows them to have a much more sympathetic view of Furtwangler than the Major.

On the surface it appears Szabo is trying to keep the film neutral, presenting both sides of the issue. That was a criticism the late movie critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert, had with the film. I don't quite agree and believe the movie is taking positions and shows the hypocrisy of the situation. The Major, representing the American viewpoint, sees the world black & white. There is no room for nuance especially when you believe you are in a high moral position. Furtwangler should have left Germany and by staying exposed himself as a Nazi sympathizer. 

On a few occasions we see the Major watching American propaganda and we hear it in the background. The film the Major watches warns him to be suspicious of the German people and to remember all of these people were either Nazis or supporters. This leads the Major to carry himself with a smug over-confidence. He looks down on the German people. At one point he refers to Germans as degenerates. His questions ooze with moral superiority. 

The Major's black & white world view is contrasted by the Germans' he encounters, especially his two assistants, who see room for debate. However each time the Major is presented with alternative viewpoints he quickly dismisses them and then victoriously declares, "See? You can't answer the question!" That art and politics are separate? Poppycock! That Furtwangler thought he could do good by nurturing the soul of the German people with his art? Pish-posh! That Furtwangler simply wanted to show loyalty to his homeland? Why, Germany sucks! And when the Major asks Furtwangler why he did not have the courage to leave like other German artists, and Furtwangler explains those artists were Jewish and it was imperative for their survival to leave, that wasn't good enough for the Major.

Szabo and his film make us, the viewer, contemplate these serious questions about art that the Major is either unwilling or unable to. These questions are still relevant today. What does art mean in relation to a country's national identity? Does it contribute to a country's identity? Does art tell us something about a country's history? If it does, what are the consequences when we begin to ban things? The implication of the Major's actions could lead to Furtwangler never being able to conduct again. How much influence, if any, should politics have over art? If we believe politics should have influence over art, how is it any different than what Communist and Fascist governments did?

Everything in the film leads us in anticipation to a final confrontation between the Major and Furtwangler. When we do get to the sequence of the interrogation, I believe it carries undeniable power. Finally we can understand why men like Furtwangler did what they did. Why should they have left Germany? They had a life of comfort. The Nazis didn't bother Furtwangler. He wasn't even pressured to join the party. Yes, perhaps he had to make certain compromises - making Anti-Semitic public remarks, playing at Hitler's birthday party - but this was necessary in order to survive. Does that make Furtwangler a coward? Privileged? Indifferent? All of the above? Szabo hits hard at Furtwangler and deflates him. It leads Furtwangler to have an honest introspective moment. To truly question his motivations. 

The movie's screenplay - based on a stage play - written and adapted by the late Ronald Harwood throws subtle actions at us to try and determine Furtwangler's political stance. When the Major begins his investigation he questions the musicians Furtwangler conducted. As each of them is introduced to Emmaline, they take note of her last name and pay respects to her father, whom they regard with great affection. All of them that is except Furtwangler. When he hears her last name he has no response. None of the actors in this scene over play this. Szabo and his cinematographer, the great Lajos Koltai don't go for any close-ups of facial expressions. But the viewer notices Furtwangler's action on their own and how it contrasts to the other responses. That's the mark of a filmmaker having great confidence in the audience's ability to detect subtlety.

Harwood, a brilliant writer, may have been best known for his Academy Award winning screenplay for Roman Polanski's masterpiece, "The Pianist" (2002). "Taking Sides" seemed like a perfect subject matter for a writer that liked to examine these kind of morally complex issues. He also wrote the screenplay for Norman Jewison's excellent - and final film - "The Statement" (2003) starring Michael Caine as a Nazi trying to hide his past. 

I have watched "Taking Sides" a few times and each time I do I come away feeling Harvey Keitel wasn't exactly correct for the role. I would imagine the character representing a kind of American everyman. The character should have been relatable but naïve. Keitel is a great actor but is missing a certain charm required for the character. Keitel is at his best when the script demands he exhibit a toughness, as in the interrogation sequences. Keitel is more than able to project that. It is in gentler moments that Keitel never comes off as believable. Picture a 20 years younger Michael Keaton or Alec Baldwin in the role. 

Stellan Skarsgard on the other hand is much more effective. Furtwangler is presented as a proud man. Despite his current situation he still demands respect and doesn't appreciate when the Major keeps him waiting. But he also looks tired, and during the interrogation scenes looks defeated. The Major's mind games may be getting to him. This makes the character more sympathetic than the Major. Some "critics" (sheep) have complained that this is a flaw of the film, that it should have been Keitel that was the sympathetic character. But this I believe would counter one of Szabo's messages - when you resort to the tactics of your enemy do you still have the moral high ground?

One of Szabo's other messages revolves around culture clash in the American vs the European view of art and politics, which the Major is never able to comprehend. Notice how Emmaline and David, despite all their families have been through, still want to defend Furtwangler. It isn't because they are all "good little Nazis, just following orders" but because of cultural identity. It is about having respect for a great artist and understanding how art contributes to a nation's identity and history. David tells Furtwangler he remembers being a child listening to him conduct Beethoven's 5th and from that moment he fell in love with music. Emmaline nearly stops working for the Major in response to his treatment of Furtwangler. Who is this American to come along and belittle our country, degrade our great artists?

Perhaps there is something culturally, instinctively different in the ways Americans and Central & Eastern Europeans view art and politics. Art is so ingrained into the European culture. Think of how filmmakers like Istvan Szabo (Hungary), Andrzej Wajda (Poland), Nicolae Margineanu (Romania) and Jiri Menzel (the old Czechoslovakia) helped establish their countries on the cinematic map. For them, telling the story of the history of their country was important. It was almost the responsibility of the artists to do so. These men took art seriously. I believe "Taking Sides" is hinting at this concept.

Of course in today's world everything has become politicized. In America we struggle with the idea of the separation between art and politics and distinguishing between the art and artists. Political activists on both sides of the political spectrum are full of hypocrisy as each side accuses the other of trying to eliminate and erase art, history and pop culture deemed inappropriate. Some want to alter it to meet the "values" of today. Examples of this are too many to recite but look at the recent controversy surrounding editing the language in Roald Dahl's books to make them more "inclusive".

While some people don't care about any of this because it matches their political viewpoint, they are unfortunately missing the larger point. Our pop culture history tells a story of who we were as a people. You can't whitewash our history. And what further concerns me, especially in this digitalized age, is how easy it is to remove things from the public sphere. 

What should be done to controversial artists and their work? Personally, I believe nothing should be done. If you are quick to censor, I would suggest you are a political person motivated by a political agenda. I would even question your appreciation of art and would doubt you see it as making any meaningful contribution to society other than it being an effective tool for political outreach. Politics, you'd probably believe, should influence art. Just like the Communist and Fascist governments thought! It would probably be best to look at the situations of these artists on a case by case basis. 

Unfortunately, outside of a few film festival awards "Taking Sides" wasn't a contender for any major award consideration. Why wouldn't this film earn any Golden Globe or Academy Award nominations? There has been a disturbing pattern the past few years of not recognizing Szabo's work for major America awards and not distributing his films. Personally, I am unaware of any attempts by activists to "cancel" Szabo but his films - "Rokonok" (2006), "The Door" (2012) and "Final Report" (2020) - have not found distribution. "The Door" is available to watch on some streaming sites but it has not been released on DVD or Blu-ray. The other mentioned films were never given a theatrical release. Though I did see "Rokonok" at the Chicago International Film Festival back in 2006 and I do own a Hungarian DVD copy of the film.

"Taking Sides" is a thought-provoking, extremely well-made film that asks questions about the separation between art and politics. And how art contributes to a nation's identity and history. Intelligently written and powerfully acted it remains one of Istvan Szabo's best films.