Testimony (1987) Poster

(1987)

User Reviews

Review this title
15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Technically brilliant, narratively a struggle
ursulahx1 August 2006
Tony Palmer's tour de force biopic of the great twentieth-century Russian composer is, cinematically, a work of genius. Aided by Nic Knowland's stunning cinematography and the director's own well-observed production design, the film is visually compelling and a fine manifestation of cinema as art.

Palmer edited the film himself, and it shows. On the one hand, he has an imaginative grasp of montage - there are thrilling sequences of images denoting the 1917 Revolution and the hagiography of Stalin. On the other hand, it isn't always clear from the sequences of images what point he is trying to put across; the Babi Yar sequence is confused in its apparent attempt to equate Stalinism with Nazism.

One thing is clear, however. Without a good knowledge of Shostakovich's life and his music, a viewer cannot get the most out of this film. Even if like me you have read the composer's disputed memoirs several times, you often find yourself asking: "What year are we in now? Who is that character? Which part of his life are we dealing with?" Narrative clarity is not Palmer's priority, and perhaps it shouldn't be; but newcomers to Shostakovich would not be advised to start here.

Kingsley's performance as Shostakovich is impeccable. Although he doesn't resemble the composer precisely, his bearing and delivery convey the composer's inner torment and private battles with perfection. Veering between nervousness and furious sarcasm, he brings across all Shostakovich's difficulty of reconciling his private vision with his public role. Mention should also be made of Terence Rigby as Stalin - wordless for at least half the film, he carries a malevolent presence which suggests the sheer imposing terror of the man himself.

In other respects, the film is flawed - the appearance of household names in small roles is distracting (Frank Carson as a Russian clown, for heaven's sake!) and Russian names are frequently mispronounced and mistranscribed. Including footage of present-day musicians performing Shostakovich's music is not as incongruous as it sounds; but it is a pity that the works are sung in English, robbing them of the natural poetry of the Russian to which they were set.

That 'Testimony' is a labour of love is unmistakable; that it is, technically, one of the most compelling pieces of British cinema is indisputable. But it is too long, the parallels between Shostakovich and Stalin are perhaps foregrounded too much, and there is a danger that this enigmatic composer will seem even less accessible after watching. That does the composer a disservice; but, on the other hand, let's be grateful that this film was made at all.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Flawed but worth watching
tommx27 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Testiomony has a lot of good points about it. It is an excellent performance by Ben Kingsley, provides some riveting use of Shostakovich's music to convey the mood of various scenes throughout the film, and gives an chilling view into Stalinist Russia. Its weaknesses are that it is hard to follow for anyone not familiar with the time period it chronicles, it is based on a book of questionable authenticity (many scholars argue that the words written in Testimony are Volkov's rather than Shostakovich's) and it has glaring errors for anyone who can read Cyrillic. (There are several signs apparently written in Cyrillic that use Latin letters that either don't exist in Cyrillic or are completely different. A glaring example is Glazunov dropping student assignments into boxes marked with Cyrillic letters and then referencing one he calls the I box. There is no I in Cyrillic.

Nonetheless, Kingsley's performance is flawless, and the film gives a good idea to the Western viewer of things like Stalin's Cult of Personality, and the terror intellectuals like Shostakovich experienced at night hearing car doors slam and worrying that they were next to be taken to be questioned, shot, or God knows what.

In its defense, this film is a little less relentless with symbolic imagery than Palmer's film biography of Wagner which, while very good in many regards, was incredibly long and disjoint.

The convention of having Shostakovich narrate the film from the grave was particularly effective. For a music student studying Shostakovich, it's worth a look if you can find it. The book is interesting as well, but again, it's questionable how much of it actually represents the words of Shostakovich.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
taking a more experimental approach
mjneu597 January 2011
It doesn't need a lover of classical music to appreciate the dramatic conflicts in the life of Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975), but the heavily camouflaged screen treatment presented here is more an artistic interpretation than a traditional biography. The film wants to expose the (often bitter) core of the composer's musical inspiration, by daring to be more expressionistic than any of his symphonies. It doesn't even make sense to evaluate Ben Kingsley's starring performance, because the entire design of the film is pitched so far beyond any standard of objective realism, with hypnotic, dreamlike imagery shifting from black and white to color and from dramatic facsimile to actual archival footage. The results are both powerful and pretentious, working best when the music itself is highlighted in historical context. Shostakovich was very much a witness as well as a victim of his era, and his music often reflected the violent events and conditions around him.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The movie is not recognizable from Volkov's book of sarcasm!
alanhemenway6 December 2009
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.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
leonard maudlin strikes again!
oneoddgirl17 June 2000
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.**
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting, but repetitive
sowens-199-30857111 July 2017
The film could have used a good editor. It is at least 45 minutes too long, with lots of repetition of dialogue and scenes from earlier in the film, which renders the last part quite tedious. Also, the massacre of the Jews by the Nazis at Babi Yar seems to be laid directly at Stalin's feet, which is historically incorrect and therefore confusing. Also, as another reviewer has pointed out, some previous knowledge of Shostakovich's conflicts with the regime of Joseph Stalin will help in following the story line, which is sometimes unclear.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A remarkably fine film ...
sean-47222 March 2007
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.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the greatest movies ever made
felixnoir28 September 2009
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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Arty bio hard to follow and very slow paced.
harposkc17 August 2007
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.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Heavy Stuff, only for intellectuals
Suppiluliomas26 January 2004
In the western world Shostakovich was always said to be a faithful soviet communist composer. Shortly after Shostakovich's death, Volkov (a friend of Sh.) emigrated to the US, having notes of endless talks with Sh. in the luggage. Volkov published the "memoir's". In this book, Sh. appears the other way round: a silent dissident, a man who fooled the communist authorities, but also a man who suffered dramatically from repressions. Obviously Sh's family and soviet officials took all measures to "prove" the book was a hoax. And even western experts had doubts too. It was not before Sh. son Maxim emigrated, that the discussions about authenticity got new fuel. Today, Volkov's book is widely accepted and trusted.

Back to the film: This was a brave move to make a movie based on this book. There is not much story, just episodes. Perhaps the experimental habit is the only way to approach this challenge. Overall, not a bad effort, but certainly not the big hit. I am not too sure as to whether Ben Kingsley was the best choice, but who knows how Shostakovich really was? In my opinion the music selection is the weak point of the film. Obviously, only the most popular bits and pieces have been used (e.g. symphonies no. 5 and 7, the great pasacaglia from the violin concerto etc.), but this was not in all scenes appropriate. I found it rather disturbing to have this music always in the background, let alone the omission of other important works. The movie focuses on the relationship Shostakovich-Stalin: certainly the most fascinating part of Sh's life. At the end, the movie has an episode on the 13th symphony, which bases on the poem "Babi Jar" by Jevtushenko. This was the only big trouble Sh. got in the time after Stalin - not because of the music but the poem! This episode should have been dropped.

My final verdict: an interesting movie, interesting views on Stalinism and maybe a good approach to Shostakovich's music for people who never heard his music. But, make sure you had enough sleep or there is enough tea or coffee available when you watch it.

I can strongly recommend the book. It is much more enjoyable than the movie.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Barely worth reviewing
bayoudog-377322 December 2020
I finally understood why I never heard of this movie, despite the production being not anonymous, the cast being what it is and the subject as well... Well it is because it sucks! It is ridiculous, it makes no sense and is of no value in terms of biography, movie experience or anything else. Do yourself a favour: pass.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Masterpiece
Troy-16-44514821 November 2016
This movie is a masterpiece, unlike anything else I've ever seen. I read Solomon Volkov's book probably 30 years ago, and as other reviewers have pointed out, the movie bears only a vague resemblance to the book. That being said, the movie holds its own firmly as a unique piece of art. Easy to watch and comprehend it is not; it certainly helps if you're familiar with Volkov's book and Shostakovich' music. If you, as I, love the music, you'll find Tony Palmer's stunning visual narrative steadily evolving along with Shostakovich' life and music. In something that's a very rare exercise for me, I plan to sit down and view this movie again very soon.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The music's the star.
Dadge16 October 2001
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.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Be Careful
cmixemong22 January 2007
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.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One the best film about a composer
ensh6815 August 2003
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.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed