Taking sides in Ronald Harwood's "Taking Sides"

List of Contents

Introduction

The meaning of the setting – background information

Harwood’s choice of characters

Taking sides for and against Furtwängler

The function of the play

Critics’ reviews of Taking Sides

Conclusion

Taking Sides in Taking Sides

Introduction

Wilhelm Furtwängler was a renowned German conductor before, during and after the Third Reich. He is still known today not least because of his ambiguous relationship with National Socialism. The playwright Ronald Harwood wrote a play named Taking Sides about Furtwängler’s denazification trial. The title appeals to the audience to take sides rather than summing up the plot of the play. Harwood makes his audience witness a dialogue of two contrasting perspectives: Furtwängler, on the one hand who is convinced of his innocence, and on the other, there is American investigator Major Arnold whose aim is to prove Furtwängler’s guilt. In the end it is up to the audience to take sides (cf. Glaap 2003, p. 13).

Questions the playwright poses at his audience are: “Why did Furtwängler stay in Germany whereas many other artists emigrated? (How) Did he manage to conduct the Berlin Philharmonic without making a deal with high-rank Nazis? Did he make up for his guilt by helping some Jews to escape? Can Arnold be interpreted as advocate of the Third Reich’s victims? (cf. ibid.).

This essay is not meant to finally expose the truth about Furtwängler’s guilt or innocence; other scholars have attempted to do that. Rather, my interest lies in revealing if Harwood succeeded in creating a neutral play that appeals to the audience to take sides without revealing his own personal opinion. With this working hypothesis I want to start by examining Harwood’s motivation to write the play. As a next step the importance of the setting will be examined. When analysing Harwood’s choice of characters and their function concerning their questioning or their support of Furtwängler, I will also examine Furtwängler’s role in the Third Reich as background information. By doing that, arguments taking sides for or against Furtwängler will also be taken into account. Furthermore, I will give an overview of the critic’s voice on Harwood’s play. In my conclusion I want to answer the question if Harwood succeeded in not taking sides.

The meaning of the setting – background information

When writing a play on Furtwängler’s life there are different perspectives; historic, biographic, dramatic or musical interpretations could be possible. How did Harwood present Furtwängler and why did he choose that way? The playwright himself stated that he “wanted to explore certain aspects of allegiance – political allegiance – personal motives, patriotic motives, musical motives, artistic motives” (Harwood 1999, p. 109).

Although there have been three groups collecting Tribunal’s evidence for Furtwängler’s case – the British, American Liberals from Wiesbaden who were pro Furtwängler and Americans from Berlin who were against Furtwängler – Harwood chose the third group, about whom hardly anything was known. This choice offered him the freedom to invent all characters but Furtwängler. This does not mean that Harwood wrote mere fiction. His rather ‘semi-fictional play’ is based upon a wide range of evidence that was presented at the original trial.

Berlin, the American Zone in 1946, is the historic site and therefore the setting of Harwood’s play. At that time Berlin was so full of rumours (cf. Harwood 1995, p. 16) and characterised by a post-war anonymity that the Americans who sought evidence against Furtwängler could not be identified until today. Charles (1998, p. 2) states about Furtwängler’s trial:

“A year and a half after the end of the war in Europe, Furtwängler was brought before a humiliating ‘denazification’ tribunal. Staged by American occupation authorities and headed by a Communist, it was a farce. So much vital information was withheld from both the tribunal and the defendant that […] the occupation authorities may well have been determined to ‘get’ the conductor”.

To fully understand the phenomenon of the denazification trials, one has to understand the cultural differences between Americans and Europeans (especially immediately after World War II), and consequently their different points of view under post-war re-education. Monod (2005, p. 2) describes that American bureaucrats were confronted with the problem of what to do with “an arts sector that had made peace with the most repulsive regime imaginable”. The Americans had to determine who was guilty, of what and to what extent, and it was up to them to decide if the German people should be allowed to listen to the same music that had entertained them through fascist tyranny. In the eyes of the Americans “every individual – Nazi or not – was guilty. […] There was no doubt that the Allies tried to heap such guilt onto Furtwängler” (Shirakawa 1992, p. 300).

“For Germans, ‘Kultur’ was part of the national identification. Where Americans often looked to business, scientific, or political leaders, such as Lincoln or Ford or Edison, when thinking about who they were, the Germans tended to refer to artists and philosophers: to Beethoven and Bach and Goethe. Because American policy makers understood this, they made classical music one of the targets of their re-education efforts.” (Monod 2005, p. 2f.)

Why did Harwood deal with Furtwängler? In his introduction he answers that his “intention was to focus on a dilemma which seems to belong hideously to the twentieth century: the artist and the totalitarian state. Wilhelm Furtwängler, to me, personifies that dilemma“ (Houswitschka, p. 423). But Furtwängler was not only an ambiguous character during National Socialism, Harwood also had a personal detachment to Furtwängler’s case:

“In an interview with the American music and theatre critic Robert Hilferty he [Harwood] recalled: ‘I’ve always known about Furtwängler. […] But I never much listened to him because, being Jewish, my mother told me he was a Nazi. Then I read a book, Berlin Diary^[1], where the Furtwängler case is described. What I loved about it was the ambiguity of it all, that you couldn’t quite make up your mind which side to take” (Stern 1999, p. 56).

This quote reveals Harwood’s undecided attitude towards Furtwängler. It shows that even the young Harwood was rather more fascinated by the ambiguity of Furtwängler’s case than able to simply take a side for or against him. Additionally, Harwood, who grew up in South Africa and later emigrated, asks himself questions, that cannot be answered: “How does one live under the pressure of a totalitarian regime? How can one survive?” (cf. Glaap 2003), “How would I have behaved in similar circumstances?” (Harwood 1999, p. 89). He describes himself as “a vocal critic of apartheid but, and here’s the point, I criticised and demonstrated and protested from a distance of 6000 miles” (ibid.).^[2]

Harwood’s choice of characters

To find out whether Harwood achieves neutrality or not it is important to analyse his choice of characters and their function as regards ‘taking sides’.

The main character, who strongly takes sides against Furtwängler, is Major Steve Arnold. He is chosen to pursue Furtwängler’s case because he seems to be neutral, which means that Furtwängler’s ingenious musical talent does not blend him. He describes himself as “totally uncultured” (Harwood 1995, p. 54) and states that he does not “see the great artist […], I see an ordinary guy” (ibid.). Because of his dislike of classical music he is rather taking sides against Furtwängler than being neutral. Already in the beginning of the play he reveals his true intention: “We’re going to nail him“ (ibid, p. 26). Arnold wants to reach this aim by torturing Furtwängler – he keeps him waiting, makes him stand up and sit down again and permanently yells at him (cf. ibid, p. 20). The subtle power struggle between Arnold and Furtwängler is always won by Arnold because he is the one in charge. But Harwood did not create Arnold as a purely bad character. The playwright even states that “Major Arnold is the only one with true human feelings in the play” (Harwood 1999, p. 108). This can be traced back to the fact that Arnold saw Bergen-Belsen two days after its liberation and his memory is still haunted by the smell of burning flesh. Is Arnold therefore the advocate of the victims of National Socialism? No, he is not suitable for that burden because he has no relation to the victims other than the memory of burned flesh and as an outsider he is not in the position of judging the German people either. The fact that his interrogation methods do not fit the good will of his conscience characterises the ambivalence within his character. He disrespects obvious evidence (cf. Harwood 1995, p. 20) and does not acknowledge the principle of ‘benefit of the doubt’. When he learns that there is no real evidence against Furtwängler he still wants to “give him a hard time“ (ibid., p. 63). This leaves the audience with a bitter after taste.

[...]

^[1] The Berlin Diary Harwood is referring to William Shirer, Berlin Diary. The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, 1934-41.

^[2] Not only Harwood but also Szabó, who directed the homonymous film Taking Sides, has a biographic parallel to Furtwängler’s dilemma by growing up during Stalinist times.