User Reviews

Biographical films are often permeated with suggestions made by the director regarding the person portrayed. These may be positive or negative - either way, they form a highly subjective pattern through which the viewer is then forced to perceive the given protagonist. Monsaingeon however, with this movie succeeded at the opposite: making a -relatively- objective portait of S. Richter. Relative inasmuch, as it is exclusively Richter himself who, by means of his music and own words, reveals himself to the viewer. Thanks to the cut, scenes from various interviews, concerts and relevant historical events (Stalin's funeral, for instance) interchange perfectly - the film appears like a stream of memories, with Richter in the center, leafing through his diary. Another crucial point when portraying a musician is the choice of samples from his/her music. Again, Monsaingeon did an excellent job, since the chosen pieces, from Bach to Schostakowicz, give a good impression of the enormous scope Richter's repertoire had. The Movie begins and ends with the Andante from Schubert's last sonata. The performance of this very sonata was appreciated even by Glenn Gould, who, praising Richter, said he had 'bypassed the performing mechanism creating the illusion of a direct link' between the listener and the music. Here, Monsaingeon's achievement is comparable to a certain extent: as far as possible: the film enables the viewer to learn something about Richter himself.

A very good documentary-style biography of a fascinating pianist. Even people not interested in classical music per-se can enjoy this film for the insight it gives to Richter's character. Richter was a very private person, but he did agree to do this film, the story of which is directly taken from his diaries. Throughout the film there are excerpts of his playing, which is at such an emotional fever pitch that even non-musicians can understand why Richter is considered one of the best pianists of all time.

Perhaps this film confirms that, in the end, we are all failures because, in the end, we all get old and die. Sviatoslav Richter was certainly one of the best, if not THE best of his generation of concert pianists, a generation that was not short of talent. Though his interpretations were sometimes eccentric, his performances always seemed valid and always grabbed the listeners' interest. I have many Richter recordings, some dating from the 1950s. To see him in this film in his final years was a terrible shock. To see this depressed, resigned, shadow of a man look back on a career that was successful by any standard and regard it with such indifference is one of the saddest portraits I have ever seen. He seems to say that his job was like any other job. He is glad that he did it tolerably well but now it is over and all there is to do is die. What a contrast to the bio-doc on the career of Artur Rubenstein that I saw at about the same time, a pianist who was widely and justifiably admired but who admitted having a limited technique and the skill to hide it. Both films are great historical records for all music lovers.

The Richter greatness was in his deepest knowledge on "what lies behind the notes". The Richter greatness was in his ability to play, every composer genuinely (i.e. you know-this is Alexander Scriabin, and this is WA Mozart), having deep knowledge of the composer style, time, manner of composing, and real life. No mix, no wizards, no exaggerations, no erratic tempi, style, behavior. And this is soo difficult, soo difficult... . No Padrewski style tricks, no Cortot bunch of wrong notes, no Horowitz show presence.

When Richter plays, you see the whole composition in front of you. You do not listen notes, phrases. You see the Bach i.e., in flesh and blood. The Richter virtuosity was transcendental. But this was not virtuosity for the sake of the virtuosity. We do not see the Maestro Richter virtuosity-he is dissolved into the music and do not struck us with false face.

Richter was not either showman, like Horowitz was. Not to speak to all today "virtuoso" pianists like Perahia, Barenboim or so on...with their unrestrained behavior and grimaces behind the piano-you know... "We feel the music".

But Richter and Rachmaninoff for me is the whole world "behind the notes".

The Richter playing have the ability to capture you. To capture you completely. You are "inside the action". You are able to dream too with the composer, helped in this by the pianist. This was possible because of one simple thing-Richter and Rachmaninoff, beside their virtuosity and technical control, had had the symmetry of their two hands-i.e. the symmetry of their hands while playing was always and almost invisibly prefect. This is crucial, because this create the feeling of the "whole piece". And this is soo difficult... . Hofmann had this too. Horowitz also. But the last two was so uneven in their performances, that this have not of too much help for them. Hofmann was plagued by his genius, unable to cope with the challenges he present to him, Horowitz in contrary, was obsessed with daemons, psychological problems and Wanda-his wife, which truly speaking, was a great destructing force for him.

Second-the two great Masters have their own sound. The colorfulness, the small rubatos, the temp changes, "the inner layers" in the music, they expressed with clarity and vision, which nobody possessed in the past century. Rachmaninoff and Richter respect the pedal, and never "make music" with him, like Gould like to do often, or like other today pianist exaggerate every note, abusing the pedal. Sviatoslav Richter was incomparable too in his ability to play soft, "muted", silently. And this to sound like this-naturally silent.

Richter indeed was VERY complex and very private man, almost and exclusively deeply devoted to his musical world. But with deep knowledge. Nobody in the 20-th century of the piano music had the knowledge and the depth which Racmaninoff and Sviatoslav Richter had have. Rachmaninoff like composer and pianist, Richter like pianist with unbelievable sense of self-criticism, hard diligence and discipline. Richter originate from rich musical environment and German traditions of his father-Theophil Richter was alumni from the Vienna University. Plus, Richter many years in his very youth work like répétiteur for the Odessa ballet and Opera. Almost nobody in the 20-th century piano music work like répétiteur, like Richter do. Because of this, Richter was (with the Rachmaninoff) probably the best by sight reader of the piano sheet music in the whole 20-th century.

Many peoples try to diminish the Richter saying that, in his late years the Maestro played with the note in front of him. The reality is simple-Richter had hearing problems and memory lapses from the late 70-ties and beyond. Yes, but in 1979 Richter was 64yr old man. Many peoples are not able to make 1+1 in this age... not to speak to play Debussy. All this is rubbish...completely. You may see in those years that Richter has his note in front of him for security reason and rare watch them at all.

If you like Richter, look at the Bruno Monsaingeon documentary film "Richter-The Enigma"-there is the real Richter.