I'm tired of Hollywood's toying with chronological facts.

[Touti]

Did you watch The Lives of Others last night? I think that is the perfect way to present a true story through drama.

Well, except for the "good" Stasi officer. Don't get me started on this.

I'll get you started on it properly once Eric has seen it! For now I'll just say you're being harsh... 

No, you probably won't. There are too many painful memories associated with this period of my life. Let's just say, it would clash with the reason I do frequent this forum.

But I can recommend this article by Tom Jennings, or doing a Google search for the movie title together with the phrase "good Stasi" to get a broader scope of the debate.

Now you got me very intrigued Mathias.  Can I read about this debate without spoiling the movie for myself ?

[goodguy]

Now you got me very intrigued Mathias.  Can I read about this debate without spoiling the movie for myself ?

No, if you don't want to be spoiled, you should watch the movie first.

[Touti]

I'm gonna do it right away then, I can't stay away from a good debate more than a few hours

[Najemikon]

No, you probably won't. There are too many painful memories associated with this period of my life. Let's just say, it would clash with the reason I do frequent this forum.

But I can recommend this article by Tom Jennings, or doing a Google search for the movie title together with the phrase "good Stasi" to get a broader scope of the debate.

That article is brilliant, very compelling and echoes my own view of some elements of the film.

The first defence of the film I can offer is the same as we have been talking about before. I knew about the Stasi and the regime, but I didn't understand why and, more importantly, how it affected people. I felt that the film successfully put across that emotion.

[spoiler]The core problem seems to be, could an officer change? Jennings presents a convincing argument that says "No". I passionately believe him, because of that film and the choices it makes. I know deep-down that man probably didn't exist and, truthfully, it breaks my heart.

Film by it's very nature is manipulative. It's hard to find a narrative that doesn't push and pull the viewer. Most of the time this is the point, but when the story is true and is as emotionally charged as this one, manipulation has to be kept at bay, otherwise it contradicts the hard truth. It is not neo-realist. Maybe it would have been better if it was, but I think filmmakers have lost the subtle art of finding hope in complete misery without resorting to fantasy. There's a reason Bicycle Thieves is one of the greatest films ever made and it's brilliance is hard to repeat.

Roughly speaking, I see the film in two halves. They bleed into each other, but still, I think there is a tangible change in tone. The first part presents the situation in all its horror and it seems to be very accurate(?). Articles I have read before suggest it evokes the time and place very well.  Meanwhile, Wiesler is a committed officer. He believes fully in the system, and so presents its ideals and possibilities, albeit misguided. 

He is so committed to the system, he is willing to break it when he sees it is compromised by corruption. He becomes enlightened enough to see it isn't helping him, it isn't helping society and the only people happy are screwing with it. And so self-sacrifice is the only option. Those wheels are oiled by his loneliness and the hypocritical use of prostitutes. This is the fantasy half of the film, or more accurately, the hope.

Anyone trapped in a situation as suffocating as this wishes for some divine intervention. Some impossible act to make it all go away. I felt the story cried out for that and the answer was Wiesler. An impossible figure to present a "what if" argument. If only there was an officer who understood the system so well, he knew when it was time to stop and admit it couldn't work. If only there were two officers like that, if only there was a government like that. Then it would all go away and the world will be a happier place.

All fantasy. All wishing for the impossible. The regime had to run its course. And so the film snaps back to reality, by saying, yes, lets have that hope answered and say there could be an officer like that, but look what happens. He was inconsequential. The system was too big and monstrous to be affected like that. Therefore, this unrealistic officer hammered the point home to people like me. Just how desperate was this situation that even the most dedicated officer couldn't change it at all?

I know the other sticking point for many people is the "happy" ending. Simply because the fantasy figure existed in the narrative, there had to be some sort of concession, hence the epilogue. If Wiesler had slipped away without any recognition, it would have undermined the point of his characters existence. I adored the ending and I think I needed it for the film to work as a whole. But it was back to the fantasy element. You have to have hope in any story for it to connect emotionally and at the end of the day, The Lives of Others is a drama, not a documentary.

In a way, it's very like Schindler's List which has added power because it's central character did exist and did provide that glimmer of hope. Otherwise we might be having the same debate about the impossible figure of a Nazi that turned.[/spoiler]

[Touti]

I guess I haven't watched the same movie as you and Jennings Jon because your description of it doesn't match in any way what I make of it.

Sorry for the spoiler tag but since Karsten hasn't seen it yet......

[spoiler]
Frankly, I haven't seen anything in that movie that remotely suggests to me that this Stanzi officier has changed after realizing the system couldn't work and/or wasn't working.  What I saw is a man who goes to a theater, falls in love with the actress he sees on stage and decides he wants to know more about her by using his power and listening to what happens in the apartment she shares with her boyfriend.

To me that is very clear from the beginning of the movie when he looks alternatively at her and her boyfriends with binoculars and then tells his superior he thinks they should be "monitored".  The superior feels there's no need but takes it up up anyway to the minister and gets the approval.

From that point on I see lots of politics in the movie but none in what Wiessler does.  When he begins to lie in his reports, I do not think he does so because he's become a "good stazi" and wants to fight the system, he does it because he wants to take control.  He wants to manipulate the events and make them folds in a way that would allow him to get rid of the writer and maybe have a shot with the actress.  This is very well shown in my opinion when he gets Dreyman outside to make him see his girlfriend leaving the Minister's car.  At this point he's already decided to try and change the course of things to make it turn in his favor.

Unfortunately for him, Dreyman decides to get politically involved and Wiesler ends up in a very uncomfortable position.  He knows very well that if Dreyman is caught, the woman he's become infatuated with will most likely end up in jail too so he decides to try to prevent that from happening.  He probably also thinks that while doing this, he can get lots of information about Dreyman and his friend that he could use against them or for his own advancement later.

Things don't fold as he expected, the girl is arrested and he's now in a risky position because he could be caught for what he did so everything he does from that point on is to cover his ass and try to save himself.

I don't see anything heroïc in Wiesler's character, I see a worm, a man without scope who joined an abusive regime because crawling in front of power is easier than standing up for your beliefs.  I despised his character at the beginning of the movie but unlike many others, my opinion about him didn't change in the end.

I was quite surprised by the ending because the book dedicated to him would indicate that what Jon has said is what the movie wanted to tell but that's not at all what I saw.  My reaction toward Dreyman at the end was "No, don't be that stupid, he didn't do anything for you and her, he's responsible for her death and everything that has happened !!!"
[/spoiler]

[Touti]

Jon is now reading my reply......awaiting his reaction anguishly

[Najemikon]

Jon is now reading my reply......awaiting his reaction anguishly

Jon was suffering a power cut, hence the delay!

[spoiler]That's certainly an interesting view and there's a lot to support it. I haven't seen it in a while, but my impression was he fell in love with what she represented, not who she was. He follows her and becomes obsessed with their lives. If he was solely infatuated with her, why steal the book of poetry? If he still believed in the system, why not report the childs father ("What is the name of your... ball?").

Dreyman is a reflection of Wiesler. At the start he is actually a supporter of the regime, just concerned about how they deal with dissidents, while Wiesler is a supporter, but concerned about corruption. The girlfriend threatens both of their ideals and I think he contrives to save them all.

Wiesler is obviously fascinated by the lives of these artists. His expression while listening isn't because of her, but because he realises what he is missing. What his beloved system, now corrupt, is threatening. He watches them like they are performing a play; he sees little distinction between her stage role and her wife role. Ironically, she was acting all the time, but that aside, he watches their life like we watch DVDs. As such, she is untouchable. The scene in the cafe was like a lonely fan trying to give someone he truly respects the encouragement they obviously need. Like that guy on YouTube... "Leave Britney alone!!!"

Have you seen One Hour Photo? I see some similarities with Robin Williams character (although he was barking!), in that he has developed the families pictures for so long that he thinks of himself as one of the family. So when he sees evidence of an affair, he works to protect the family. Wiesler was doing the same. The girlfriend was a lost cause and he tried to help her (the cafe scene again), so when she died, he sees it as a failure.

So far as the character is concerned, I believe in Wiesler fully. The ending would be horribly cruel otherwise and I really don't see that that was their intention.[/spoiler]

So anyway, what did you think of the film as a whole? I'm very interested to see Matthias's view, especially as your interpretation doesn't allow the Stasi officer redemption.

[Touti]

[spoiler]
I will concede that I might have taking too much at the first degree and that he is more attracted and fascinated by the people his watching than the sole girl.  Your analogy with "One Hour Photo" is quite accurate in that regards.

I agree with you at the beginning of the movie he is this Stazi bastard (sorry if my vocabulary isn't as poetic as yours) who strongly believes in the regime and that what he's doing is right.  This is actually well pointed by the reply to Jennings article mentioning he even teaches the technique.

I'm still not convinced though that his change of behavior is driven by a profound change at heart.  I don't think he begins to see what he's missing.  He sees people having friends who care for them, throwing birthday parties for each other, giving each other gifts, basically he sees people having a life that throws his own failure in life right back at him.  It's a reminder to him that he is nothing and that he goes home to nothing but the 4 walls of his apartment, a small tv (how can anyone watch such a small thing anyway  ) and a bowl of rice with tomato sauce.

You're probably right Jon, he's not infatuated with her, he's infatuated with them and that I think supports my point that his change of attitude is driven only by his own needs and not because he's "changed sides" if I can put it this way.

Yes we can talk about why he didn't report the child father and that could shake my view a little but I don't think that in itself is enough to make me see him differently.

[/spoiler]

That said (or spoiled if you prefer), I really enjoyed this movie.  Regardless of what we think the message is, it is really well written and really well made.  It does gives you a sense of how people felt in GDR or at least it makes you think it does which is a good start.

I was a bit surprised by a few scenes though which contradict any idea I ever had of a socialist/communist country.  Hauser for instance, how could he travel between East and West Germany so easily ?  I doubt anyone could just cross the wall barriers saying "Oh don't worry mate, I'm just going to visit a friend, we'll be back home for dinner".

I was also surprised by the scene where they watch the tv news report about the article published in the West.  I seriously doubt that people in East Germarny had access to West Germany tv channels.

A very good movie anyway.

Score: [mr]4[/mr] 

I can't give a 5 because in the genre it would make it equal to the Schindler's List of "The Pianist" but it's not up to that level.

[DJ Doena]

btw: The abbreviation is "Stasi", which is short for "Staatssicherheit" (Homeland Security).

[DJ Doena]

I was also surprised by the scene where they watch the tv news report about the article published in the West.  I seriously doubt that people in East Germarny had access to West Germany tv channels.

Trust me on this: We had. You must not forget, we were on the border of two opposing systems. And of course the Americans and West Germans were also interested in populating their point of view.

RIAS (Radio im amerikanischen Sektor = radio in the american sector [a Berlin radio station]) was receivable well beyond the borders of East Berlin.

And with the exception of the north-east and south-east parts of the GDR which were called "Tal der Ahnungslosen" ("valley of the clueless") back then, west-german television was well receivable in most parts of the GDR. I've watched all my favourite TV shows (Fall Guy, Riptide, MacGyver, ...) via the west-german ZDF in the late 80s.

[Touti]

Trust me on this: We had. You must not forget, we were on the border of two opposing systems. And of course the Americans and West Germans were also interested in populating their point of view.

You did because they no way of stopping the waves or was it actually allowed ?   Did people have to watch/listen to these stations in secret ?

[DJ Doena]

You did because they no way of stopping the waves or was it actually allowed ?   Did people have to watch/listen to these stations in secret ?

I think it was more because of the technical inability to stop the waves. I think it would have been ill-advised to publicy announce that you are watching "Westfernsehen" ("television from the west").

On the other hand you were an outsider in the schoolyard when you didn't know what Colt Seavers or MacGyver did yesterday in the lastest episode (But I doubt any of could have written these names correctly back then).

[Touti]

It's probably naive of me but to a dumb north-american's East Germany seems like Romania or other communists countries where people had no rights whatsoever.

[Najemikon]

[spoiler]I'm with you on the idea of him not changing sides. I believe that had he not been suspected of falsifying the evidence, he would have continued in his job, but with less zeal.[/spoiler]

Karsten is steadily adding some more colour to this story. Fascinating stuff.

By the way, I just wanted to mention that I thought Ulric Muhe's performance was superb. It was incredible that he wrung so much emotion from such little action. You may not be aware that he died last year, which is a terrible loss when he was just coming to more attention outside of Germany. I found this on Wikipedia which I thought was interesting. Life imitating art, etc...

After German reunification, Mühe discovered evidence in his Stasi file that he had been under surveillance not only by four of his fellow actors in the East Berlin theatre, but also by his wife Gröllmann. The file held detailed records of meetings that Gröllmann, who was allegedly an "Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter" (unofficial collaborator), had with her controller from 1979 to 1989. This mirrored the plot of Das Leben der Anderen as in the film pressure exerted by the Stasi on the playwright's girlfriend makes her betray him as the author of an exposé of covered-up GDR suicide rates. Mühe and Gröllmann divorced in 1990. In a book accompanying the film, Mühe spoke about the sense of betrayal he felt when he found out about his former wife's alleged Stasi role. However, Gröllmann's real-life controller later claimed he had made up many of the details in the file and that the actress had been unaware that she was speaking to a Stasi agent. After a highly public and acrimonious battle in the courts, Gröllmann, who died in August 2006, won an injunction preventing the book's publication.[3] Mühe's response when asked how he prepared for his role in Das Leben der Anderen was, "I remembered."

[DJ Doena]

It's probably naive of me but to a dumb north-american's East Germany seems like Romania or other communists countries where people had no rights whatsoever.

It wasn't that bad (at least from a child's perspective) and the goal of our leaders has always been to be the "better german country". It was definitvely not as it was portrayed in US movies or series when they showed scenes that were supposed to play in "East Germany".

I grew up in Marzahn, a district of Berlin, where we had a nice comfy appartment with district heating, telephone and colour TV (bat that thing really was expensive*). I went to a school that was 150 meters from our front door and due to living on the 11th floor (of an 11-floors-building; with an elevator up to the 10th floor) we had a great view over our part of the city.

Today the district looks like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Berlin_marzahn_panorama.jpg
Most of the 11- and 5-floor buildings haven been renovated since but the buildings have been build between the end of the 70s and the mid-80s. Before that Marzahn was only a village (in the literal sense) on the borders of Berlin. There are new buildings between those (mostly malls) but the only real new building I can see is that 2-floor building with the red roof in the front on the right third of the picture. That's a new school they built in 1993-1994. I know that because that's were I went to school from 1994-1997 to make my Abitur


* Food and other important stuff was subsidized in the GDR, everything less necessary was very pricey.