User reviews

I'd like to offer a rebuttal to some of the negative comments about this movie. I, too, noticed the same things that turned off the others - the lack of typical plot, dialog, and drama. In fact, halfway through the movie, i was having a hard time staying focused. But then I started to get it. After the movie was over, I watched the "Making of..." documentary that was on the DVD. It was only then that I truly understood. The director Straub, a refugee from Algeria, living in Germany. A 10 year quest to make the movie. Everything was dogmatically intentional. He wanted the performances to be shown statically. He believed if one was to listen to a 7 minute piece of music, all the drama should be derived from the music, not the cinematic arts. All sound was location, the musicians are the highest caliber - everything played on screen. What movies today could boast of that? Also, he said he wanted it to be as much a documentary about the virtuoso Leonhardt who plays Bach, as it was about Bach. To him, a long shot on the face of the performer was all one needed to experience the ecstasy of Bach. Remember, too, this is 1967 Germany. He was trying to avoid all nationalism, and was glad to have a Dutchman play Bach. I think looking at this movie through the eyes of today's short attention-spanned, explosion thirsty movie-going POV is ignorant. I doubt many of those people could even sit through a 7 minute piece of music. Straub was 30 years ahead of his time. Anyone who appreciates the Dogma95 should understand. Finally, I see that he and his wife had been making movies together for over 40 years, until Danièle died last fall. My condolences, Mr. Straub. This is one person you have reached.

Most films about composers are awful. Really awful. Liszt, Chopin, Beethoven, Mozart--all dumbed down or hyped up by Hollywood. And then there's Ken Russell's desecrations of Tchaikovksy and Mahler. By comparison this film might have come from another planet, not just a different country. I first saw it 35 years ago, and was delighted to find it as engrossing and moving as it was then. It's about the music, stupid. But it's also about how grinding, tedious, and incredibly demanding Bach's everyday life was, while he wrote and performed some of the greatest creations of the human mind. And also how he was a family man, living an intense domestic life. Yes it's austere and demanding. But stay with it, it's worth it.

"Each and every music piece is observed with mostly, a static, single take that framed with a particularly deliberated angle that often overlooks its subject, illustrious musicians - conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt, harpsichordist Gustav Leonhardt and Austrian music ensemble Concentus Musicus Wien, among others, offering full rendering of Bach's baroque éclat, whether it is from a single harpsichord, or an ensemble with chorus. For any classical music connoisseur and Bach votary, the film is an ascetic paean paying deferential homage to one of the most accomplished musicians of all time, and for those less familiar with Bach's works, it constitutes an edifyingly melodious piece to wide our horizons and nourish our sensoria, however unrelieved its modus operandi is."

This isn't available on video, unfortunately, so you'll probably have to see it at some retrospective. As any film biography of a composer should be, it is saturated with Bach's music, and much of the film is little more than a filmed recital, in costume. But it contains much significant biographical material so that we get an insight into the difficulties of life in Bach's time. It seems that one of his children is always dying. This is quite factual: of Bach's 20 children that were born of his 2 wives, only 6 survived to adulthood. This is a masterpiece that should be seen if at all possible.

Certainly not 'a biopic', either of the composer or of his wife, who narrates most of it, Huillet and Straub's film "Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach" concentrates almost entirely on Bach's music, of which we hear a great deal, and is told in what really amounts to a series of tableaux of said music being performed, interspersed with stills of journal pages, sheet music, drawings etc. It takes around forty minutes for Bach himself to speak and for 'the actors' to appear. It is, in other words, not so much a film as an illustrated album of some of Bach's greatest hits and is either a source of great pleasure to lovers of his work or the most boring film ever made, (you might prefer simply to listen to the recordings). Of course, lacking in 'dramatic' structure it may also be the greatest film 'about' a classical composer ever made since the directors let nothing stand in the way of the music. In some quarters, I have seen it described as a masterpiece.

The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach, directed by Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, is a chef-d'oeuvre that transcends traditional categorizations of cinema. This film is a unique blend of period feature film, biopic, documentary/experimental film-making, and TV movies, offering viewers a new horizon to the future of media productions. Despite receiving bitter criticism from the majority of film critics, the film's formalistic approach, inspired by the musical forms of Bach's music presented in the film (such as the exemplary fugue-like structure of a scene), redefines all clichéd definitions of film categories, making it a timeless classic that has left a lasting impression on many progressive filmmakers of the next generation.

One of the most striking aspects of the film is its release date, which coincided with the political turmoil of 1968. This timing links the apolitical facade of the film to its contemporaneous political context and transforms it into a reactionary political artwork, making it an emblematic example of German post-war cinema. However, the film's significant presentation of every "documented" document in the film, including Bach's manuscripts, and the portrayal of Gustav Leonhard, a legendary harpsichordist of his own right, as the lead character who personifies Bach, turn the film into a magnificent "musical document" of all times, even if it is historically inaccurate.

In The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach, Straub and Huillet have pushed the boundaries of period feature film, biopic, docufiction, and educational TV programs (like that of Rossellini's) into an integrated, multifaceted arthouse film. They have masterfully managed to offer a new horizon to the future of media productions and paved the way for more complex intellectual free- forms, bringing different cinematic principles together. This achievement is perhaps reminiscent of the Nietzschean idea of compositum mixtum, which suggests the unification of incongruent elements to create a new and harmonious whole.

In conclusion, The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach is a film that is not only a masterpiece of its time but also an example of how different forms of art can be seamlessly blended together to create a new artistic form. Its impact on the future of media productions is undeniable, and it remains a timeless classic that should be appreciated for years to come.

Very stark, very drab, no real drama. Why not just make a documentary? This isn't exactly The Passion of Joan of Arc. The only reason for seeing Chronicles is to hear the performances. I love Bach's music and even I found it hard to sit through this misery of a film. The great Gustav Leonhardt plays (in two senses of the word) Bach. We don't get much of a sense of him as an actor, since he's given so little to do dramatically. Mostly, he gets to walk purposefully or angrily out of various rooms. Bach's life, of course, was not an Errol Flynn movie. It was indeed fairly drab and more than a little hard. This probably means that the life isn't a terrific candidate for a film. The music, of course, is another story. I recommend The Stations of Bach. Far more information, for one thing, and some insight into the music, which is, after all, why Bach interests us in the first place.

"Dogmatic," as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. "Pretentious?" Yes. "Cinematic?" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.

If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.

This was intended, I guess, as a totally straight "chronicle" of J. S. Bach and of his second wife Anna Magdalena. When the project was conceived this must have seemed like a good idea, motivated by love and respect for Bach's music. But I found the end result to be slow-moving, uncinematic, unsympathetic to its characters, wooden, and (after about an hour) unwatchable.

It would in principle have been enjoyable to listen to the extensive musical performances included in this film. But the sound quality unfortunately is quite poor. I also found that the cheesy costumes and wigs distracted my attention from the music.

OK, I'll cut this a little slack for being made in 1968, though this does not fully excuse the horrible sound quality. Stereo became common 10 years before, yet this is in mono, with compressed, over-modulated, sometimes severely distorted sound, recorded on an optical film track, with background noise. I saw better-recorded educational films shown on a 16mm projector in class as a kid. Hmmm, maybe this was the audience for this project -- an educational film for European music classes?

On the plus side, videos of musical performances were not as common as now; I wish they were. It is interesting to see a performance, especially keyboard or orchestral, even if the camera is static. But you need first-rate sound... and color. This is filmed in black and white. I love black and white, but this is washed out and fuzzy.

I love classical music, especially Bach. What makes Bach unique is not his use of melody, which was more fully exploited later, but his use of interweaving contrapuntal lines, requiring the listener to follow multiple instruments simultaneously. This is largely lost in mono, especially with this muddled sound. This makes me suspect that the producers didn't really understand the music. However, at least having the visuals of the performers helps a bit to recapture some of that polyphonic interplay.

The performances are adequate. But today with modern sound technology, and the wide variety of performances and interpretations, often on period instruments, these performances seem hopelessly stodgy.

The concept was not entirely off the mark: filming Bach with period instruments, performers dressed in period clothes, with historical settings, is interesting. It would have been more interesting with audiences, for that's how the music would have been performed, but then you would need more costumes. In color with digital sound, this might have been striking, but in black and white, even the costumes are boring.

Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, it just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_.

This film may be of interest to music lovers, due to its detailed showcasing of period instruments, sheet music compositions, and unceasing Bach music. Beyond that, it has nothing to offer. It purports to be a copiously researched biopic, but is really just a performance history of Bach's pieces, with occasional voice-overs in between, accompanied by pans across period etchings or bits of sheet music. In one particularly plodding scene, Bach's music is accompanied by an image of treetops against a still sky for something like five minutes. Ultimately, it watches like a number of late-night arts channel, low budget TV performances spliced together with scant historical information, ala a fifth-rate documentary from the VHS section of your local library.

After reading the reviews I decided to rent the DVD version.

I like classical music and wanted to learn more about Bach.

I was disappointed. I guess I do not know enough about Bach music and the the comments were not enough for me to understand the importance or what music was being played.

Maybe it would be appropriate with the guidance of an expert in Bach's music that can explain the film.

I really tried and saw the whole film hopping that I would be able to enjoy at least some of it, but I did not.

See it at your own risk.

Once again, I watched yet another film by the two most boring husband/wife filmmaking team to ever grace the director's chair. For some reason, Straub and Huillet's films keep showing up on lists of the greatest films of world cinema. They never should have taken up filmmaking because they have no desire to actually make movies. Instead, they just want to point a camera at someone reading classical works of literature or shoot three hours of communist propaganda or in this case, have someone perform Bach music while reading letters written by his wife. That's the thing that bugs me the most about their movies. I realize Straub and Huillet don't usually use actors in their films. But the least they could have done was require the people in the film to actually learn their lines. There is absolutely NOTHING entertaining about watching some guy in 18th Century dress READ his lines. This is common in all of their films. From Clouds to Resistance showed people reading poetry and classical literature while dressed like Greek gods. I don't mind the concept but why not have them learn the lines? Or at least hold up some cue cards? Every time I watch one of Straub/Huillet's films, I wonder why they didn't either make a documentary or better yet, write a book? That would have totally suited their purposes much better than film as they have no concept of filmmaking. I feel like they are trying to share their love of classical music here and perhaps interest the audience in Bach. They failed miserably because they forgot the first rule of filmmaking: TO ENTERTAIN. Once again, they are so wrapped up in their own agenda they don't think about how the film will be perceived. Those who say this is a masterpiece are confused or just plain wrong. I have read countless reviews of Straub and Huillet's films where the reviewers confessed to not understanding what they were trying to do but gave it a "thumbs up" anyway. Not understanding something does not make it a masterpiece. These two rely on audience confusion to keep making movies. It's simply ludicrous. This is not a masterpiece. Just because you feel insecure for not finding it interesting or not understanding it, does not make you any less of an intelligent person. It's ok to say this movie is dreck. It IS. You don't have to pretend this was interesting or engaging. It wasn't. Even the Bach fans have trouble sitting through this. My colleague is a music professor and HE could barely make it through. In fact he was insulted that these two "directors" managed to take a man who already had a horrible life but was a genius composer and make him mundane and boring. Bach fans should be outraged at this horrid rendition of his story.