I know it's not a documentary, but is it asking too much to not turn Frederick II into a conniving Cartoon villain caricature, or Friedman Bach into a hack party boy who never moved out if his parent's basement, or KPE intonan envuous weakling? The one thing that is true - Bach met Frederick the Great and improvised on a melody of the King's invention- is at least left in. The actual events are interesting as they happened, with all the manufactured drama this script offers, it's somehow less interesting and frankly dull. Points however for acting- the performers are quite fine if a bit over the top, and costuming is gorgeous. The soundtrack is terrible - most of the music especially what WF "improvises" is film score derivative of neo-romanticism, musical styles WF would never have conceived of, but worse still, never justified. I think we're supposed to believe WF was ahead if his time, misunderstood by all around him but it falls flat (so to speak) and he comes across as spoiled over indulged brat with no developed ability.
If you're seeking a good movie about one of history's greatest musical minds, give this one a pass.
9 Reviews
Bach to the drawing board
johno-212 February 2006
I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival and being interested in historical subject matter and in classical music I perhaps entered into this with too much expectations. This movie did nothing for me. I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a great soundtrack of Bach music but most of the music in it is by the film's soundtrack composer Frederic Devreese. Good period costuming and set design. Vadim Glowna is excellent as Johann Sebastian Bach. This film was shot on Super 16 and printed to 35mm and almost all of this film is shot with hand held cameras. I could only muster up a Fair rating for my review. I would give this a 5.5 on a scale of 10 and I could not recommend it.
Aargh...what did they do to Friedemann's music?
kimfierens31 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This would have been a decent movie (although the plot isn't particularly strong or interesting) if it weren't for the many historical inaccuracies and, most importantly, the utterly disgraceful treatment of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach's music. Friedemann was quite a talented and fascinating composer in his own right (though probably not as great as his famous father), who composed some very interesting and beautiful music. Yes, he was quite a free spirit and was, both as a person and as a composer, remarkably different from his father.
But how, I ask, did those responsible for the soundtrack get it into their minds to transform Friedemann's fashionably (for the time) graceful and sensitive melodies into some grotesquely anachronistic post-romantic musical wallpaper? And why was it so hard to fill the entire soundtrack with period music - people did it in Amadeus, Immortal Beloved, and Farinelli (to name just a few), so why not here? With all due respect to the composer of the soundtrack's original music, I thought his music was just way too anachronistic for me to sustain my suspension of disbelief. I simply couldn't believe in the story anymore.
Among the countless non-musical historical inaccuracies, let me mention just one. Unlike in the movie, Bach, according to many reputable biographical sources, didn't flatly refuse to improvise anything on Friedrich's theme. In fact, he pulled off the three-part fugue originally proposed by the King, and only withdrew after the six-part fugue was proposed (the latter being too difficult to improvise).
So, no more than 4 stars for this cinematographic lemon. This could've been 7, had the soundtrack compilers done a better job.
But how, I ask, did those responsible for the soundtrack get it into their minds to transform Friedemann's fashionably (for the time) graceful and sensitive melodies into some grotesquely anachronistic post-romantic musical wallpaper? And why was it so hard to fill the entire soundtrack with period music - people did it in Amadeus, Immortal Beloved, and Farinelli (to name just a few), so why not here? With all due respect to the composer of the soundtrack's original music, I thought his music was just way too anachronistic for me to sustain my suspension of disbelief. I simply couldn't believe in the story anymore.
Among the countless non-musical historical inaccuracies, let me mention just one. Unlike in the movie, Bach, according to many reputable biographical sources, didn't flatly refuse to improvise anything on Friedrich's theme. In fact, he pulled off the three-part fugue originally proposed by the King, and only withdrew after the six-part fugue was proposed (the latter being too difficult to improvise).
So, no more than 4 stars for this cinematographic lemon. This could've been 7, had the soundtrack compilers done a better job.
An essentially fact-based account of a meeting between two famous people
wis824 March 2005
The film is based on the 1747 meeting in Potsdam, Prussia, between JS Bach and Prussian King Frederick II, known in history as Frederick the Great. After his visit Bach actually did compose a work entitled "A Musical Offering," also mentioned in the film. As far as Frederick's sexual preferences are concerned, it is well known that although he married, he only saw his wife occasionally, and no children resulted from the union. Throughout his adult life Frederick never showed much interest in women: his interests were music, philosophy, and fighting wars. The one place in the film where some dramatic license occurred was in the treatment of Frederick's sister, Princess Amalia. But the real Amalia was a handful, just as she was in the film. In her early 20s Amalia actually eloped and became pregnant, thus ruining any chance of marrying her off to another royal house. An enraged Frederick hunted her down, had her marriage annulled, had her ex-husband thrown in prison for 10 years, and sent her to an abbey, where she spent the remainder of her life.
Through the fine acting, the sets, the costumes, and the edgy way the main characters were portrayed, the film is an excellent contemporary interpretation of an actual historical event.
Through the fine acting, the sets, the costumes, and the edgy way the main characters were portrayed, the film is an excellent contemporary interpretation of an actual historical event.
Beautiful music and clothes
nashtags26 July 2004
The music is excellent. Of course. The clothes are designed by Vivienne Westwood. They only can be beautiful. Besides these facts, the movie won the Best Picture Award at the Swiss Film Prize. I found the story sometimes boring and quite long. On the other hand, the actors are all doing a great job. One last comment about the madness-and-"gayness" of one character. It could actually be taken out of the plot: it's too much and doesn't bring anything to the movie, to my point of view...
Weak from almost every perspective, lacks subtlety crucially
Horst_In_Translation13 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Mein Name ist Bach" is a co-production between France, Germany and Switzerland from 2003. The country I mentioned last is probably crucial here as this is probably the career-defining work by director Dominique de Rivaz, who is also one of the writers here, because the film received strong awards recognition in Switzerland was eventually also chosen to represent the country at the Oscars back then where the film did not even get close to a nomination though. Not unexpected in my opinion, but I'll get to that later. Most German filmmakers would really be intrigued by the prospect of Glowna, Vogel, Herfurth, Taubman, Buck and the very recently deceased Rehberg as part of their project, but they definitely did not manage to use the strong cast list to an extent here where this could (and should) have become a strong period piece. As the title gives away, this film centers around the life of famous composer Johann Sebastian Bach (in his later years) and especially on his conflict with Friedrich II. I must say that I didn't like the title too much. It says nothing sounding like a Bollywood movie set in Germany while actually trying to say a lot. It also sounds a bit like a biopic in my opinion, which it absolutely is not.
Anyway, the big problem here is not the name, but it is the script. It lacks subtlety entirely and goes over the top in a cringeworthy fashion on quite a few occasions. One would be when Vogel's character starts singing randomly and the singing component was generally a big weakness. Another, even worse situation was the table scene where everybody except Bach had sheets over their heads. Meh... The worst is that some of these scenes were intended as the most poignant and most memorable of the movie and that is just not working out. So the actors were given weak material on Vogel's occasion especially, even if what he did with it was not really tolerable either, or they were simply not given enough material and screen time quantity-wise, so that an otherwise solid actress like Herfurth was pretty much wasted. I guess visually you cannot say really anything negative as costumes and sets were okay and the ending / last shot wasn't too bad either. However, the tiny pros cannot make up for the big cons here. I give "My Name Is Bach" a thumbs-down as it is nothing but a very poor man's version of Amadeus as we depict the fall of a genius in the face of an oh too powerful rival. It was rightfully not nominated for an Oscar and I suggest you skip these 1.5 hours.
Anyway, the big problem here is not the name, but it is the script. It lacks subtlety entirely and goes over the top in a cringeworthy fashion on quite a few occasions. One would be when Vogel's character starts singing randomly and the singing component was generally a big weakness. Another, even worse situation was the table scene where everybody except Bach had sheets over their heads. Meh... The worst is that some of these scenes were intended as the most poignant and most memorable of the movie and that is just not working out. So the actors were given weak material on Vogel's occasion especially, even if what he did with it was not really tolerable either, or they were simply not given enough material and screen time quantity-wise, so that an otherwise solid actress like Herfurth was pretty much wasted. I guess visually you cannot say really anything negative as costumes and sets were okay and the ending / last shot wasn't too bad either. However, the tiny pros cannot make up for the big cons here. I give "My Name Is Bach" a thumbs-down as it is nothing but a very poor man's version of Amadeus as we depict the fall of a genius in the face of an oh too powerful rival. It was rightfully not nominated for an Oscar and I suggest you skip these 1.5 hours.
That melody
bob9988 April 2007
Frederick II the Great of Prussia had a court that glittered with great minds, yet life with this King was anything but idyllic. He seems to have behaved imperiously with everyone, even his sister Amalie (at one point he slams the piano lid down on her hand, a rather brutal way of making his wishes known). All the fun of this film comes from the stratagems worked out by Bach to avoid falling under the control of Frederick. The King leads Bach to his new pianoforte: Bach pronounces the instrument unsuited for his music, and not even in tune. Score one for the Leipzig master composer!... The royal theme, to be treated as a fugue with six voices, is played lovingly many times, as well as Friedemann's passionate yet empty-sounding piano works.
Vadim Glowna is very sly and moving as Bach, and Juergen Vogel does a terrific job as Frederick, the ruler with a lot of emotional issues. Anatole Taubman plays the lusty and dishonest Friedemann very well.
Vadim Glowna is very sly and moving as Bach, and Juergen Vogel does a terrific job as Frederick, the ruler with a lot of emotional issues. Anatole Taubman plays the lusty and dishonest Friedemann very well.
No, your name is not Bach
srotanes27 November 2021
Thoroughly irritating work, harmful, lack of respect.
This is both a bad movie in itself and a source of misinformation. There is no absolutely feeling of authenticity. We modern people, as Rammstein describes us, are americans and consumers and we are doomed to sameness and we are spreaded everywhere. That is why director here is supposing the era of Bach people were like us, drinking, giggling, pissing anywhere (!), fornicating, conversations are made for entertain and without any sense of conviction and dignity. But no, this film is not a mythbuster, it is a falsification. Somebody here has taken name of Bach and is just pretending and acting he is (watch and compare this movie to Bach miniseries made in DDR in 1985). Strangely enough, the film is Continental production and actors speak German, so may this production be a warning example how movies should not be made in Europe.
The star in the film - a fatal miscast- does not resemble at all Johan Sebastian Bach who can be heard in his music, can be seen in the paintings or is described by his wife in "Anna Magdalenas little chronicle". The real Bach was profoundly religious, serious, always meditating his music, a humble servant of God and emperor. "Always honest", writes Anna Magdalena. Not a corrupt old rock star, aging Amadeus of Milos Forman: Lock up your daughters, the Bach family is coming to town! In reality, he gave up composing profane instrumental music to be able to focus on organ playing and that is why he moved from Weimar to Leipzig... Church organ has -if you think a moment- slightly a different character than the flute that is widely used in the movie. Bach had austere lutheran education, he worked as cantor and latin teacher and wrote tons of music for pedagogical purposes, to make other people better persons and musicians... he composed not a single opera.
But ok, I was not there, I did not know Bach personally. But I know that Voltaire visited Frederic the Great in 1740 (and second time about 1752) and Bach visited him in 1747. How could they possibly meet in the wagons passing by each others? Other rewievers here are grateful for this movie for it´s documental value...
This is both a bad movie in itself and a source of misinformation. There is no absolutely feeling of authenticity. We modern people, as Rammstein describes us, are americans and consumers and we are doomed to sameness and we are spreaded everywhere. That is why director here is supposing the era of Bach people were like us, drinking, giggling, pissing anywhere (!), fornicating, conversations are made for entertain and without any sense of conviction and dignity. But no, this film is not a mythbuster, it is a falsification. Somebody here has taken name of Bach and is just pretending and acting he is (watch and compare this movie to Bach miniseries made in DDR in 1985). Strangely enough, the film is Continental production and actors speak German, so may this production be a warning example how movies should not be made in Europe.
The star in the film - a fatal miscast- does not resemble at all Johan Sebastian Bach who can be heard in his music, can be seen in the paintings or is described by his wife in "Anna Magdalenas little chronicle". The real Bach was profoundly religious, serious, always meditating his music, a humble servant of God and emperor. "Always honest", writes Anna Magdalena. Not a corrupt old rock star, aging Amadeus of Milos Forman: Lock up your daughters, the Bach family is coming to town! In reality, he gave up composing profane instrumental music to be able to focus on organ playing and that is why he moved from Weimar to Leipzig... Church organ has -if you think a moment- slightly a different character than the flute that is widely used in the movie. Bach had austere lutheran education, he worked as cantor and latin teacher and wrote tons of music for pedagogical purposes, to make other people better persons and musicians... he composed not a single opera.
But ok, I was not there, I did not know Bach personally. But I know that Voltaire visited Frederic the Great in 1740 (and second time about 1752) and Bach visited him in 1747. How could they possibly meet in the wagons passing by each others? Other rewievers here are grateful for this movie for it´s documental value...
Music as a being
Walter_c19 February 2012
'The Musical Offering' by JS Bach is one of the greatest masterpieces in the music written by a human and one of the highest tops of musical thought. But the film is not mostly about how that was composed but rather about dramatic fragments in Bach's and Fredrick's families. Juergen Vogel played a complex personality of the Prussian King with conviction. Vadim Glovna (as Bach) however, playing his role, reflected Bach's character in such a realistic and simple way that you could forget about a sublime genius, a part of the universal mind which was Bach. But even such a giant acknowledges music being much more essential than the human being. "The family is not eternal, music however..." he said, talking to his son's wife. Glovna very honestly performed Bach as just a mortal man with his doubts, fears, smiles and cries. And the final scene is so emotional although nothing particular happens. I sincerely recommend this movie to every one of Bach's (and his music) fans and the ones who like the historical drama on the screen
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
