I give 5 to the movie just for the sake of the interpretation which is of course outstanding. But as far as the script is concerned this movie misses the point.
I don't know who were the guys in charge of the hearings when Fürtwängler was prosecuted. But I do hope they were not such stupid, uncultured guys like the major in the movie. The Wikipedia paper about the movie gives two views of the critics of this movie as follows:
Roger Ebert found the movie "both interesting and unsatisfying. The Keitel performance is over the top, inviting us to side with Furtwängler simply because his interrogator is so vile. There are maddening lapses, as when Furtwängler's rescue of Jewish musicians is mentioned but never really made clear. But Skarsgård's performance is poignant; it has a kind of exhausted passivity, suggesting a man who once stood astride the world and now counts himself lucky to be insulted by the likes of Major Arnold."
Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle finds that the movie's promise to provide a balanced argument "goes unrealized, and all we're left with is the spectacle of an idiot bullying a genius. Harvey Keitel's performance as the smug, self-satisfied major is terribly miscalculated, unless he intended for us to loathe the spectacle of a small, stupid man glorying in his sudden power. That's possible. Stellan Skarsgård plays Furtwängler with an air of exhaustion that seems a generous attempt to justify the script's weakness, that the conductor doesn't defend himself vigorously enough. Of the two men, it's the major who acts more like a Nazi."
I think they resume very well the great errors of this film. I doubt any judge would act like this and pretend to try to do a fair inquest. It doesn't make sense.
The director and his scriptwriter had many documents to help them build a credible and authentic account of what happened and they just missed it.
In conclusion: astounding interpretation for a very poor scenario
I don't know who were the guys in charge of the hearings when Fürtwängler was prosecuted. But I do hope they were not such stupid, uncultured guys like the major in the movie. The Wikipedia paper about the movie gives two views of the critics of this movie as follows:
Roger Ebert found the movie "both interesting and unsatisfying. The Keitel performance is over the top, inviting us to side with Furtwängler simply because his interrogator is so vile. There are maddening lapses, as when Furtwängler's rescue of Jewish musicians is mentioned but never really made clear. But Skarsgård's performance is poignant; it has a kind of exhausted passivity, suggesting a man who once stood astride the world and now counts himself lucky to be insulted by the likes of Major Arnold."
Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle finds that the movie's promise to provide a balanced argument "goes unrealized, and all we're left with is the spectacle of an idiot bullying a genius. Harvey Keitel's performance as the smug, self-satisfied major is terribly miscalculated, unless he intended for us to loathe the spectacle of a small, stupid man glorying in his sudden power. That's possible. Stellan Skarsgård plays Furtwängler with an air of exhaustion that seems a generous attempt to justify the script's weakness, that the conductor doesn't defend himself vigorously enough. Of the two men, it's the major who acts more like a Nazi."
I think they resume very well the great errors of this film. I doubt any judge would act like this and pretend to try to do a fair inquest. It doesn't make sense.
The director and his scriptwriter had many documents to help them build a credible and authentic account of what happened and they just missed it.
In conclusion: astounding interpretation for a very poor scenario