Open weekend movie thread

I saw "Lives of Others" last night (Saturday). Here's a few thoughts, since you asked:

(1) In general, I really enjoyed the film. I must confess, however, that my expectations were so high, I was expecting something a little more intense, more dramatic, a film more (but not totally) "American," less European in style.

(2) Watch the extras on the DVD: (1) the making of the film, and (2) the interview with the director, von Donnersmarck. They're kind of long and a bit tedious, but there's a mine of information in them that will enrich your experience and comprehension.

(3) I found the end sequences a bit choppy; it jumps from 1989 to 1991 to 1996 (iirc).

(4) A major theme of the film concerns whether people can change, something about which a fat party official expresses incredulity early in the film. This frames the ideological question for the viewer which the story will answer. Is that question, answered on a personal level in the life of Wiesler, meant to be asked of eastern Germany on a national level?

(5) It's nice to see a film about the DDR time. There have been a zillion movies about WWII full of heroes and villians. I can't remember any really great, important movies about the DDR time (although I liked Good Bye, Lenin quite a bit. The star of that film, Daniel Bruehl, has a bit part in The Bourne Ultimatum.).

(6) On that note, it was hard not to draw comparisons between the feel of this film and the feel of films about the Nazi period. For instance, the Stasi uniforms, the commitment to bureaucracy, the emphasis on the state at the expense of the individual, etc., all seemed very Nazi. The interrogation rooms in "Lives of Others" reminded me of Nazi interrogation rooms in films like "Sophie Scholl." The difference, of course, is that the Stasi/Communists are not (and rightly so) portrayed as brutal as the Nazis. No summary executions, etc. But dehumanizing to the core. I was reminded of Arendt's words about the extreme right and left being two sides of the same coin (paraphrasing, of course, as I cannot remember her exact words).

(7) On the other hand, the DDR (partly as a result of technology but more, it seems to me, a result of concerns for purity and ideology) was much more concerned to monitor the thoughts of its citizens than the Nazis were -- maybe that's a function of being too busy fighting a war on four fronts (East, West, Africa and against the Jews).

(8) I suppose, right now, my chief thought is this: I appreciated a negative portrayal of communism. It's easy (and certainly right) to portray the Nazis as the incarnation of pure evil, but among elites in politics, academia and culture communism often gets a pass. Think of how many American academics approved of and admired the Soviet Union and ignored the crimes committed by Stalin and other communists.

I suspect the reason for that is that such elites concern themselves with intentions, not actions: the Nazis intentions were to conquer the world and commit genocide. Communist intentions involve constructing a paradise on earth for the poor. In that vein...

(9) ...the film both implicitly and explicitly raises the tensions between communist ideals and communist practice and hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy of a party boss that causes Wiesler, a true Stasi believer, to undergo his transformation. There's also a scene in the beginning where Wiesler is explaining to a class of budding Stasi agents how to interrogate someone using extreme sleep deprivation. A student suggests that such techniques are "unmenschlich" (iirc) -- inhuman, which receives a sharp reprimand and a mark by his name on a chart.

(10) Eastern Germany today is a mess. Perhaps reunification wasn't handled very well (I honestly don't know and have no strong opinion on that), but it seems that the communist system destroyed the robust cultural and moral fiber needed to maintain a vibrant society. Xenophobia is rampant; neo-Nazis are a problem; work is hard to find; many bright young women have left the East to find opportunity in the West, and this has resulted in a severe gender imbalance that has left bands of angry young men behind (the BBC in particular has reported on this).

In short, I guess it's refreshing to see a film done well that casts such a critical eye on the DDR and communism. I'm not sure what the best form of government is (I'd probably opt for a very conservative Catholic constitutional monarchy); I'm not so stupid as to think American capitalism and liberal democracy is the best of all possible worlds. I am nevertheless glad to see communism portrayed as the dehumanizing institution it was, and be reminded that even in the most dehumanizing of systems it is possible to do the right thing, to be a Mensch, a human, and treat others as the same, even at great risk to one's self.

I feel like I've typed a lot without saying a lot; I'm interested in others' reactions as well -- especially anyone with first-hand experience of the DDR. It was only 18 years ago that it all came crashing down. Isn't it amazing how that seems like ancient history?

Few thoughts on The Lives of Others (english is not my first language, so please be patient)

I think the movie is vastly overrated, by that I do not mean The Lives is bad film. The acting and direction are very good, which helps to cover up for some serious flaws and build a rather misleading sense of depth and catharsis, which in fact are largely absent. Author apparently prefers to keep things neat and tidy, makes his film look serious and brave in a way, while keeping it easy and cheap, enabling the viewer to feel good about himself as being capable of "getting serious art". But this piece of art - quite comfortably - does not demand anything of him.

SPOILER WARNING

The film - as Irenaeus wrote - casts communists as baddies. But it dosen't say much about communism. Its protagonist captain Wiesler is a "believer" who comes to a sort of epiphany, when asked to participate in an operation against loyal and in a way prominent citizens, in order to help one glutonnous aparatchik to get what he wants. Irenaeus is right when he writes that "the film both implicitly and explicitly raises the tensions between communist ideals and communist practice and hypocrisy." At the same time the film leaves the door opened for the familiar explanation - the idea of communism was great but marred by people executing it, which is a tired old cliché. And also a lie - the lives of people people in DDR (or fromer Czechoslovakia where I come from and where I live) would not have been better if the communist ruling class was made of staunch believers of Wieslers kind. It would probably be worse. The problem was not so much with practice and hypocrisy but with the idea itself, hypocrisy, lie and totalitarian practice were part of its core.

The main thrust of the film is transformation of captain Wiesler, brilliantly acted by Ulrich Mühe. In fact he acts so well that he nearly makes one to forget, how easy this transformation is and how dull and unimaginative sometimes is the way it is shown. He listens to some talk about freedom etc. from the flat which bugging he oversees (being secret policeman for many years, he had to hear this kind of arguments for many. many times), he listens to some music and poetry (by Brecht of all people)and snap! - here we have "new" capitain Wiesler. Next time you meet some dedicated communist super cop, have your piano ready, he will melt like ice cream on the sun. The Lives of Others seems to be also a story about transformative power of art and slips well beyond the border of wishful thinking in that area, is comfortably complacent. And its illustrates its point in quite pedestrian manner (all this intercutting between going in the appartment and Wiesler listening and reacting upstairs, for some really inventive use of the theme of eavesdroppping se Coppollas The Conversation). But its not all about piano, its also about love - Wiesler has a crush on Christa. This lonesome automaton finally found someone to care for selflessly. It makes the ending of the film (before the coda from the 90s) all the more shallow. Here we have a man who served a lie for many years and the lie was exposed to him. Here we have a member of a powerful organization, who witnessed this very oragnisation to break and de facto kill the probably only woman he loved in his life. And what does he do? He stays with the organization. Accepts demotion a diligently works on - opening letters of "the others", maybe looking quite sad while doing it, but that would be all. Wiesler doesn't make any effort to leave Stasi not speaking about confronting it. He stays with full knowledge of whom is he serving. He might have some sort of alibi before, now he has none. I wouldn't call it transformation. Some real change would not be that easy and would have some consequences.

There are also some problems with the movies structure - especially in its third act, when the characters sometimes cease to be themselves and start bent over backwards in order to fulfill the needs of the plot. It is glaringly obvious in the grand finale in Dreymans flat, when the Stasi commando finally finds the place where the typewriter was hidden (it took them really long time), Christa breaks down and runs away and the bad Stasi guy stops colleagues who try to pursue her, by which he risks blowing the cover of his newly recruited informer in front of the man, Christa was supposed to snitch on. All that in order for Christa to make it to her rendezvous with an ex machina truck (one of the cheapest dramatic ploys out there). Talking about informers - on Dreymans place I would be quite cautious to invite three other people to write some anti regime text with me in my flat. The probability of some of them being a snitch would be quite high - especially given their status, being on the fringe of the official scene, somehow tolerated "rebels". But if it werent for this gropu effort, there would be no subversive talk for Wiesler not to report to...

Which gets us to questions of historical accuracy and overall plausibility. I know well, that one should not be too demanding in that department, films can not and maybe even should not present some historically accurate description of an era. Therefor I thing its quite tolerable that von Donnersmarck lets the minister oc culture use Stasi for his private purposes, while in reality of DDR, where Stasi chief Mielke, who was de facto omnipotent soviet governor of Eastern Germany would not allow something like that to happen. What is more strange is Wieslers participation in the affair. The brilliant opening sequence (marred only by that student protesting inhumane treatment of prisoners - I mean come on, you are studying the Stasi school, you know very well, when to keep your mouth shut, you don't give a damn about inhumane treatment of anybody, all this - fortunately very short - episode serves only as a cheap shortcut tu a history leesson) Wiesler is shown as a star investigator, ace of the service. Why the service vastes his valuable time on something a trained monkey could do? And there are much weirder things. You don't have to have deep interest in the history of communism to know that when police (political, criminal, any) in any country bugs a place, it also records what was overheard - to have evidence, to have time to "decrypt" what was said (if your listen recording made by hidden in a room full of people, you may well end up not understanding anything). Not to record in that situation is against all rules and borderline insane. But there is no tape recorder in Wieslers attic, because if Stasi acted with a semblance of rationality and put one there, there would be no plot. Wiesler would not be able to cover up for Dreyman, the bad Stasi guy would well be able to prove Wieslers insubordination at the end. How convenient.

Wow, what a long post. It happens when one sits at home and has nothing else to do other than drink coffe, oversee carpenters doing some work in his place and let it loose at the computer. Ciao from Prague.

To be honest with you, I don’t have the words to make you feel better, but I do have the arms to give you a hug, ears to listen to whatever you want to talk about, and I have a heart; a heart that’s aching to see you smile again.

I congratulate you on the coming Valentine's Day

http://www.sendspace.com/file/375fr0