Film: The Lives of Others by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Rating: 9/10
Original Music by Gabriel Yared supplying the title of this review
Germany has come into its own of late with some of the best new cinema in Europe. Europe has, of course, always been head and shoulders above America. My first thought leaving the theatre was that this film exemplifies everything that sets European cinema apart from American cinema. “How did Hollywood get it so wrong I thought”, rather idiotically, because of course Hollywood is laughing hysterically all the way to the bank. Nevertheless, give me a European film any day.
The bad guy in a European film isn’t a psychopath. He’s your average selfish individual ready to use whatever power he has to walk all over others just to get what he wants; you meet them everyday in every walk of life; and many don’t think they’re bad. The good guy in a European film isn’t a hero who takes a few blows, turning the other cheek and then eventually rising up against evil and restoring order and justice to the world. No, he’s weak and afraid like most of us and if he’s lucky he’ll muddle through without losing too much; and many don’t think they’re that good. It’s even more complicated: bad guys aren’t bad all the time and good guys sometimes betray their friends.
This fabulous story shows one bad/good guy, who terrorises others by his diligence in enforcing a regime he believes in, becoming ambivalent about a case because he doesn’t respect the motives of his commander. It shows some good/bad guys, who just want to succeed in the regime without believing in it, and one who discovers that she’s prepared to compromise her friends to defend her ambitions. So in a way it’s a story about one man relentlessly committed to his principles whatever their effect on the lives of others and others who were prepared to compromise their own principles for the benefits that can bring and how both switch sides.
Finally it’s not easy to tell bad/good from good/bad … like in the real world. And then there’s the unique circumstance of the story where the Berlin Wall comes crashing down and one of the characters gets the never-before-thought-of opportunity to actually read the official record of what happened (because here we’re in a country with a fixation on recording every last detail) and he puts two-and-two together.
Bound to disappoint American audiences (if Hollywood’s fixation on happy endings is to be trusted!) because the really bad guys walk and the good guys get a pretty raw deal, this film is simultaneously enthralling because it’s believable and a thrilling piece of European culture.
Nice blog!
I think it is misguided to say that Wiesler is portrayed as a terrorist on a power trip, fighting against the courageous, intrepid Dreyman. When Grubitz is driving Wiesler home from the theater at the beginning of the film, Wiesler says in passing to Grubitz something to the effect of “Don’t you wish sometime that socialism was already here?” I don’t know exactly how it appeared in the American version of the film, but the German could be loosely translated as I have. The film is set (and the entire DDR existed) in a time when all of East Germany was waiting for socialism, which was their ultimate goal. The initial phases of socialism involve harsh social control to make people of the same mindset, so that they are willing later to work together for the common good, according to Marx and Engels. East Germany was led to believe, and Wiesler was of the mindset that, they were working for the eventual realization of true socialism in Germany, and Wiesler is acting for what he perceives to be the greater good. His frustration with the lack of progress of the society towards socialism becomes clear throughout the film. When Wiesler and Grubitz sit in the cafeteria to eat their lunch, Wiesler sits at the table with common workers instead of at the table with officers like himself. When asked why he is sitting with the common workers he says to Grubitz: “Socialism has to start somewhere.” It is my contention that Wiesler is not a terrorist at all, nor is he an “average selfish individual ready to use whatever power he has to walk all over others just to get what he wants.” he was lied to, and told that he was working for the good of the state and of the people. Upon hearing the “Sonata for a Good Man,” he realizes that the ultimate goal of socialism is not worth the present destruction he is causing, and turns his life completely around accordingly. One can’t forget to look at him not as a Stasi, but as an idealist. One’s lens mustn’t be tinted by hindsight, and it must be understood that Wiesler himself was doing throughout the movie what he thought was right for the country and its people.
Hi Gavin,
thanks for your comments. However, you didn’t notice that I was a bit ambivalent about whether Wiesler (or Dreyman) were good/bad guys. I certainly saw his idealism, but I’m a bit wary of the old excuse: we were only following orders and I’m not too inclined to forgive people who think they know what’s good for me and will force me to have it. Exploiters all over the planet find a never ending supply of such people and I can either decide they are stupid or power-crazed but I’m not prepared to give them credit for their obnoxious behaviour. Indeed, for me, the weakest part of this film was the idea that Wiesler would turn a blind eye to the border-crossing. I found it implausible. All his subsequent behaviour struck me as the self-defensive response of somebody who realised they had compromised themselves and now needed to hide the evidence.
I just saw the movie. I can remember the wall coming down and also my father, who travel into east Germany at the time, talking about how it was in east Germany at the time.
I am not going to comment on the movie, you have already said it all. I am curious if the book “Sonata For A Good Man” is real.
I’m an American and it certainly is not fair to generilize. I loved the movie and was not disappointed. You know how I can tell if a movie is great or OK? If I don’t realize I’m reading the subtitles; as was the case with this movie. I certainly agree with the lines being blurred between good and bad. I do believe it is tough to be good once you go down the path of being bad. It has a tendency to harden one’s heart. What Wiesler did at the end gives us hope that even at our worst we can still find our way back. Which is why the book by Dreyman was dedicated to Wiesler. He realized how easy it would have been for Wiesler to turn him in and just be done with it. It took a lot for Wiesler to find his heart again with the probability of prison or death. The movie gives us hope that there is still the possibility of humanity in anyone/everyone.
Hi Karl,
thanks for your thoughts. Naturally I realise there are sensitive and intelligent Americans and my remarks are not about you or them. I’m commenting on the comparative state of the two film industries and even recognising wryly that yours is making the money. With rare exceptions however, and refer to The Savages for a nice counter-example, European films have a better fix on the real world. Personally I think Wiesler didn’t talk because having tried a little experiment in tolerance, he found he was too deeply implicated to back out. There’s more to it than this, but somehow I was troubled by his motivation for going along with the defection escapade.
Hi folks !!!
Defnitly you guys have given all the ways to look at this movie. I am an Indian, and I liked this movie too. Its amazing masterpiece, that has really surfaced the Idealism and the problem of Germany in that time. I have been exposed to both Socialism and now full-throttle Capitalism. But I beleive Idealism will never die. …
very nice site, i book marked with title on seeing it, telling how much attractive is your blog.
Strange, I read Wiesler completely differently.
I saw the most important theme being explored through him – a negation of Hempf’s assertion at the cocktail party that ‘People don’t change’. He steals the Brecht book after he hears Jerska mention it; he reads it in his spare time, clearly moved by it – even more so by Jerska’s sonata. The decision not to rat out Dreyman wasn’t just ‘an experiment’ – it was the first flowering of a, for lack of a better word, ‘Western’ sentimentalism in the ultimate apparatchik.
When he gainsays his subordinate’s interpretation of a transcript, he’s not protecting himself – he’s protecting Dreyman, precisely because of the humanising effect the surveillance is having on him. All the references to ‘your public’, ‘our guardian angel’, etc.? I think the language of the script, when it refers to him in relation to the observed characters, is far too sentimental to allow a reading of a self-interested Wiesler who merely wants to escape punishment.
Then again, that’s just my reading. Definitely my number 1 film, though.
Bit late to this review, and of course I saw the film on release, but the discussion about the US/European film industry mindset still applies. The U.S. mainstream film industry is an obvious money machine. But there are film-makers who use it for what it is: either acting in or working as crew on the blockbusters to earn money for putting back into better films, which unfortunately only get limited release. These are done for artistic reasons.
I’m thinking of ‘little’ films like Thomas McCarthy’s ‘The Station Agent’.
On the whole I prefer European films and themes because they also deal with things I’m used to as a European.
Hi Roger,
thanks for the comment. I watched “The Station Agent” for the second time, less than a week ago and I couldn’t agree more with you. It’s delicious and completely European in tone and yet American in setting. Sentimental, but not in a gushy way. The coffee stand guy is, in a way, too good to be true, but don’t you just wish he was your friend or that you were as easy-going as him?
Tchelyzt