Moviecut—Testimony

source: Testimony

Testimony would be a firm and undoubted entry on my list of the ten greatest films ever made. I'm not really interested in the debate over whether this movie is a 'true' portrayal of the composer. I'm only really considering it as a piece of cinematic art. From that point of view, it is a masterpiece, a classic. It's not a traditional movie. It is like a completely different, fresh approach. It is closer to masterpieces like 'Nosferatu' or 'the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' than to any modern film. In some ways it is like an extended video clip - a montage of narration, sight and sound. It leaves unforgettable images on the mind. Everything about this movie is first class. It is a very contrasty, noir B&W movie which fully utilises the artistic possibilities of that medium. I won't detail the greatest images, because that would spoil it. But there are many very powerful moments that are unforgettable and loaded with meaning. The narration and script are masterly. The powerful music of Shostakovitch is completely integrated. That music is difficult and complex, and to reveal it to the viewer and to make the viewer love it is a wonderful feat. The acting is first class, equal to the best ever seen on screen. Kingsley's performance as Shostakovitch is extraordinary. Terence Rigby, who I think of as a ham actor but whose presence in a movie is often very powerful, conveys silent menace as Stalin. Images, sound and acting can scarcely be bettered. This movie is about a true genius and artist living at a time when the image and cult of one man totally dominates the whole of society and where any question over loyalty to that figure is deadly. But ultimately this movie is only about itself. It's not really about Shostakovitch any more than a Caravaggio is a comment on society. The question is whether it completely grips for its whole length. It does.

It's rare that a movie gets made from a book I've read, which might be one of the reasons for my disappointment. Too much of the movie felt like exposition - jumping from one point to the next. Of course, telling the epic life-long story of Soviet composer Shostakovich on a shoestring budget doesn't help. The director takes an arty approach that looks cool but doesn't go anywhere. He scales the movie up using footage from Eisenstein films, while at the same time denouncing Eisenstein (mainly because of his connection with Prokofiev). There's not much "story" to Shostakovich's life anyway - it's mainly an internal struggle with Stalin and his artist-killing regime. Will he be killed for writing his next symphony? Will he be killed if he doesn't write it? The real drama's in the music. Ben Kingsley is great as Shostakovich, but there's no narrative for him to follow, and the movie is hard to sit through. It might have been more interesting if it were Russian instead of British, or at least felt more authentic. All it really shows is how cinematic Shostakovich's music is.

Ben Kingsley is a great actor. Here, he gives a performance worthy of an oscar. I almost believed he was Shostakovich himself. The film is very good, especially the first part. The second part is a bit too focused on his relationship with Stalin. I think this was unessecary and a bit boring at times. One of the best film about a composer along with Amadeus.

It was a long time ago that I saw this film, but I remember enjoying it very much. It's not exactly a happy tale, but it is uplifting thanks to the wonderful music. I knew almost nothing of Shostakovich's music before seeing the film, but I left thinking this was one damn fine composer.

Volkov's book, by the same title, is a collection of sarcasms, unique to Russians, about living under the Soviet system. Except for use of sarcasm in the script, the book has no relationship to this very complicated movie. Some of these comments here, seem like they came from folks who have not read the book. The movie is hard to categorize. I have never seen anything like it. Tony Palmer is a genius! I met Shostakovich in about 1960 when he attended, I think Meistersinger, at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles. From my impression of Shostakovich, I felt that Ben Kingsley had somehow studied the man and connected with him, Kingsley being as ideal as you would expect, such as his preparation and ability to portray Gandhi. This movie is certainly for insiders; still there were a few things I didn't quite understand. I think perhaps the surreal moments had to do with the vanity of a pretentious society and it futility, such as his playing a keyboard on a raft in the fog and capsizing, or him walking among the clowns coming at you on the sidewalk. Tony Palmer and Ben Kingsley got me very deep into the Shostakovich pathos and the conditions under which he survived, and I haven't been the same since. The DVD has been released and there should be copies on eBay. I am disappointed that the DVD was not mastered from a better copy of the movie. I once had a pristine copy that I taped off of PBS. I loaned it to a noted conductor and never got it back.

This is a remarkably fine film, with a genuine look at the kind of fascism/totalitarianism and fear that come whenever societies stray too far from the center, whether lurching too far left and killing millions or too far right and doing the same thing ... Kingsley and the supporting cast do an amazing job. Why does it have such a low rating? This is a cinematic achievement as good as any I can recall. The sets bring back a complete and accurate look at what the "flavor" of Soviet Stalinist Communist architecture and life were like (I studied Russian and Russia during the Cold War era and know a bit about this if you are skeptical). The music is, of course, remarkable; but it's not just the music, but also how it's used. Whether in relation to the Soviets, the Nazis, the intelligentsia, the proletariat, or Shostakovich's own family. Again, I think this movie should be at least a 7.5; and wonder why it isn't.

Be careful what you believe after viewing this film. It is based on a "memoir" that has been proved to be fake by scholar Laurel Fay. Shostakovich's state of mind as he was dying was not as morbid as the movie would have you believe. If you would like to know how he felt about dying just listen to the Viola Sonata, Op. 147. It's the last music he wrote as he lay dying, and it most definitely does not end in a morose, sad way. This movie over emphasizes the supposed connection between Stalin and Shostakovich. Shostakovich did not see himself as being anything like Stalin. I would wager to say that Shostakovich saw himself as being very different from the brutal dictator. Stalin did not inspire Shostakovich; his later works are not lesser compositions as the movie implies. The previous commenter mentions that there is little narrative in the movie. That's because Testimony has no narrative either. It's an amalgamation of pilfered writings and spurious facts. Solomon Volkov has never defended himself in any condemnation of his work. His silence speaks volumes.

i was relieved to see that leonard maltin wrote a less than glowing review of this movie---it means it must be one fine film. if he thought 'testimony' was 'overlong' and a 'turgid narrative,' then for him 'amadeus' must have seemed the equivalent of fatty arbuckle slipping on a banana peel. the fact is, 'testimony' is brilliant. if your idea of a good movie is an historic nightmare of artistic oppression and indentured prolificacy, then youll put this gem at the top of your a-list, if you can find it. if you like shostakovich and cant find the movie, read the book while playing his 7th symphony in a bombed-out warehouse. then, light your stale non-filters off the flame of a smoldering leonard maltin review, and contemplate the plethora of stars hes thrust upon the film career of yahoo serious. **special warning to film buffs: 'testimony' depicts the great sergei eisenstein slipping on a banana peel.**