1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
2. Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
3. How would you change the film?
4. O.Scott, A New York Times writer commented, in his review of the film that, "'The suspense comes not only from the structure and pacing of the scenes, but also, more deeply, from the sense that even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will. You never know, from one moment to the next, what course any of the characters will chose.'" Respond to his critique.
Here's a link for more info on the film.
1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteThere were many scenes to the film that caught me off guard, from the intense spying to the truck hitting her suddenly,but there was one scene that really stuck with me. The elevator scene where the kid tells Wiesler what he learned from his father, that Wiesler is a bad guy because all he does is arrest people. From his expression, we can tell that Wiesler was going to ask for the father's name, possibly arresting him. However, he stops and plays it off with, "What's the name of your ball?" Before this scene, his character was merely a emotionless, obedient member STASI, and this scene reveals a his kind nature, which I found interesting.
That was a really interesting scene for me too! I felt like Wielser could have easily found the guy and had the power to destroy him. The people who he worked with were so cruel i feel like it had an effect on him. Like in the scene where one man is telling the joke about the sun rising and setting and how the guy would greet the sun. They were having a great time, but one of the higher authorities threatened his job and family. He later played it off as a joke but it just came to show how cruel they could really be. And for Wieslar to in the end show compassion toward the kid and maybe realise the effects of what hurting his father could have done to the boy, he decided to be the better man.
DeleteI thought the same thing, I think the character development portrayed by all the characters were really interesting. It shows how much people can change in such a short period of time given the right conditions. Putting people in difficult situations shows their true personality, as it did for Wiesler (as you stated).
DeleteI think that was actually one of the major turning points Weisler. It was the first time that he is able to defy his allegiance to the state security and really feel for the people around him and not just see them as missions. Before he has to contemplate and stress about what he's hiding from then on Weisler appears to find a new roll and purpose while making up stories to cover for George.
DeleteI agree with you, I also liked that scene.
DeleteYes, I agree. I think that scene was also one of my favorites because it showed a different and totally unexpected side of Weisler. Until that point, he was portrayed as a cold and indifferent person who was ruthless. But not asking for the name of the boy's father showed that he felt bad for the kid and didn't want his family getting into trouble.
DeleteI also thought that this scene was really powerful and interesting. It showed Wiesler starting to make decisions for himself and breaking away from what he was "supposed" to be doing. This was one of the many instances that he had to struggle between morals and his responsibility.
DeleteI thought that scene was interesting too. Wiesler stuck out compared to the rest of the stasi agents. Although on the outside it looked like he was cold and indiffernt, i think he was just following orders. However, it wasnt his true nature. Wiesler had a much more warm and friendly attitude that we didnt get to see as much. Maybe it was because that he was being monitored everywhere. However he was kind/ lenient to his co worker who was suppose to be sharing the servalence work with him. SO maybe that shows a more human side to him
DeleteWow I never saw the scene in that way, but what you said makes sense. That scene is the pivotal moment when Wiesler breaks away from the STASI and reveals his opposition to the oppressive system.
DeleteI think the film was nice and gave a lot of insight to what life was like in east Berlin. It certainly was interesting to see, even if it was not entirely accurate, what it was like to be monitored by the government in full commitment. I believe the film relates to hamlet due to the betrayals within the film and in the book. Both main characters are betrayed by women they love and are being watched by people of higher ranking. I believe that in order to connect this film to the book Hamlet even more, there should've been a scene where Dreyman and Wieseler meet each other, as Dreyman doesn't know who Wiesler is until the very end of the film. I think the choices the characters within the film were fairly readable as they almost always acted on the instinct to survive. The only one character that was not as readable was Wiesler as he was having an internal conflict at the time of the operation.
ReplyDeleteNice comparison to Hamlet...and I COMPLETELY agree to that scene addition. Wiesler NEEDS to meet Dreyman (and we need to see it). Life of Others 2?
DeleteThough I personally don't feel the choices made by the characters were completely readable - the movie had me on edge for a large majority due to the potential of catastrophe falling on each of the characters (2 house checks? really?).
I actually like the fact that they never meet. In a sense, it's romantic (not love romantic). Rather than focus on these specific characters, it ends on a broad note, of gratitude not specifically tied to a person, but something intangible. There's a scene/movie very much like this called 5 Centimeters per Second, about a man and a woman who were childhood friends. As the movie progresses, they think about each other and the love they shared when they were young. But
Delete*SPOILER ALERT*
In the final scene, the man sees the woman he used to love as he's crossing a train track, and as the train goes by, he realizes the person who's on the opposite side is indeed the person he grew up with. But as the train passes, she is no longer there. Yet, he's satisfied, and walks away. In an ideal romance, yes, they would have gotten back together, and maybe have had a wonderful life. But when he walks away satisfied, it's because he knows it's over, and he's completely okay with it. In it's own bittersweet way, it's beautiful because it really shows how no matter how beautiful, things that have passed, have passed. Similarly, the fact that Wiesler and Dreyman never meet is beautiful in it's own way. Rather than direct the audiences attention to these two characters, the movie opts in a different statement; to believe in the humanity of others. And in it's own right, it did so beautifully.
I agree with Ryan. I think the movie's ending was very poetic. Two people, who are intertwined with each other's lives, expresses gratitude towards each other in the most subtle of manners. One, by dedicating a book, and the other, by accepting that gratitude and understanding that Dreyman has somehow changed his life for the better. I appreciate the movie’s ending. By making the audience wish they met, the movie makes us wish for an emotional connection that may not appear on the surface, but is there if you look closely enough. Wiesler subtly smiles and Wiesler touching the book everywhere are just two examples of the movie made the ending work. Sure, the movie ended on a mysterious moment, but it also ended on a satisfying moment. This was a moment that felt like a rightful ending, and I am glad the director made this choice. This was a quiet but powerful film, and it is only fitting that the movie ended on the same concept.
DeleteI think the character development of Wiesler is really interesting and significant in the film. In the opening scene, we are shown that Wiesler is a strict, rule following member of the Stasi that will stop at nothing to retrieve information on people escaping or rebelling against the GDR. We see his methodic ways and how he takes note of everything and how he teaches a class about interrogation. We see the gradual change of Wiesler as he observes the pair of artists, Georg and Christa Maria. He begins to leave out information and eventually asks to be the only one on the mission. The elevator scene is a significant scene where Wiesler starts to ask the little boy for his parent’s name but instead changes his mind. Another significant turning point is when Georg is testing to see whether his apartment is bugged or not and fakes the scenario where his friend is trying to get across the wall. Wiesler would normally send in more patrols to the street where they are allegedly trying to escape, but instead he does nothing. At the end of the film, there is a scene where Georg sees Wiesler delivering mail but does not approach him. It is an ironic parallel to how Wiesler watched Georg for all those months undetected.
ReplyDeleteI really like what you mentioned about the Georg watching Wiesler parallel! I agree that the elevator scene and the bugging the apartment scene are very big moments in Wiesler's character development. Another moment that showcases how much Wiesler has developed is when he approaches Christa and tells her how much he admires her work, giving her the strength to return to Dreyman and not go to Hempf.
DeleteI think this film did a very good job of comparing and contrasting how different people are and the difficulties of everyone's lives. While Wiesler was devoted to the government and was even willing to devote his life to the government, Sieland and Dreyman were the complete opposite and showed their personality through their art forms and did not take orders from others. However, in the end, Wiesler was the one who broke free from the control of the government by helping Dreyman. He lost his job and his essentially gave up his life in order to protect the people that he cared about despite starting off as an emotionless man. Sieland on the other hand, is supposedly in love with Dreyman but in the end she is the one who sells him out to the government. I think this shows how much people can change when put into a difficult situation.
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis of this, and the differences in characters. It's something I didn't notice/ compare the two characters. In the beginning Wiesler did seem emotionless and I didn't expect him to show compassion. I did expect the actress to backstab, but only after sometime. Either way, I thought it was a really good comparison.
DeleteThe parallel of Wiesler and Sieland are interesting since they seem to change the most throughout the film. Wiesler is inspired by the artists he is spying on and Sieland is blackmailed into helping the corrupt government that she normally opposes.
Delete3. How would you change the film?
ReplyDeleteWhile the suspense was amazing, keeping the audience guessing at what would happen from one moment to the next, I feel that there should be a more concrete ending - a followup - to how the movie ended. The movie wonderfully creates the characters from the start. HGW XX/7 was very strict from the start. We first see him interrogating a man over and over again (I thought he was going to be the movie's antagonist). However, he changes into a more "free thinker" and instead supports Dreyman in his publication. Likewise, Dreyman changes. His enemy, former Stasi and his stalker, he instead publishes a book dedicated to HGW XX/7 (pop quiz over, it's Wiesler). This book was written in order to show gratitude to Wiesler.....SO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT? I NEED TO KNOW.
OMG yes! I would have loved to see that too! It would be so awesome if they become life long friends and I like how they have this sort of friendship even though they've never met each other before.
DeleteI totally agree with you about how there should be a follow-up to the ending of the movie. But, I also think that if there were a follow-up, there wouldn’t be as strong as an open interpretation in the end. Personally, I think that was what the director was trying to go for. He wanted the audience to decide for themselves how the relationship between Gerd and Georg will be like in the future. Also, there probably is not much of a follow-up anyways as it is inferred that Gerd and Georg don’t even meet up and Gerd is just an insignificant supporter of Georg, just like he was at the start of the movie.
DeleteI also agree that the movie should have continued after Wiesler purchased Dreyman's novel. Maybe the two could meet and become friends? However, that might take away from the impact of Wiesler and Dreyman never meeting/talking. Personally, I would have liked the ending to have Wiesler/Dreyman narrate a few lines from Dreyman's novel.
DeleteI'm also slightly unsatisfied with the ending and am very curious as to what could've happened. Slightly disappointed that Dreyman decided not to go talk to Wiesler, but I guess that's what makes it interesting in that throughout the entire movie, the two characters have never directly interacted.
DeleteI would also have loved a happier ending uniting the two. But I think the ending that leaves them apart as two human beings sympathizing towards each other through their own vastly different lives left a bigger impression on me. I felt the director chose to leave a message about the nature of human emotion.
DeleteI do agree that the ending was left unfinished. It did leave me wondering what happened next but it also left me satisfaction. In the end at first, when Dreyman doesn't visit Wiesler, I was very disappointed because I wanted Dreyman to thank Wiesler but later we find out that Dreyman writes a whole novel dedicated to Wiesler. It drives me crazy how I don't know what the book is about!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd then...?
DeleteAnd then??
Delete4. I definitely agree with what O.Scott said about them being burdened be free will. All the characters had a lot of different ways they could react to the situations around them, and in my opinion they had an equally likely chance to choose any of those paths. For example, what if Wiesler didn't develop such a conscious, deciding to help Dreyman? I didn't expect him to do so while I watched the beginning of the film since he was so hard core, yet he did, saving Dreyman. The choices people take can also be seen in Dreyman, and the actress. Dreyman could've stayed clean, not listening to the other writers and doing something illegal, but his friend's death changed his mind. While showing the free will people have, it also shows how oppressive the society is. They are forced to choose one way or another, with the fear of being convicted by authorities. Another thing that O.Scott says, is that the structure and pace makes the movie suspenseful, though I'd disagree because I thought it started off rather slow, besides the interrogation scene. I couldn't tell what was happening for the longest time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Divya, I thought that it was really interesting to see the characters change throughout the story, and see who they truly are. For example Christa in the beginning of the movie, she showed a great love for Dreyman. But in the end, she did show her true colors when her career was at state she rated Dreyman out.
DeleteI agree, all of the characters had at least one point in the movie where they could have chosen to do something differently. For example Christa could have chosen to not tell where it was hidden or Dreyman could have kept quiet about the fact that he knew that Christa was cheating. It was interesting to see how each of their decisions lead them to change.
DeleteI agree, I think it's interesting how Wiesler changed his mind and decided to help Dreyman despite the fact that he was the one who suggested spying on him in the first place. Most of the other characters also exercise free will at some point, such as Dreyman when he decides to publish the papers despite knowing that he would get in trouble if he were caught. The free will people have in oppressive societies seems to hold more weight than free will in a normal society.
Delete1.React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteOne scene that struck me as important was the scene where the group of people who work for the government are all sitting and eating lunch together. One of the guys made a joke about the government and after laughing, his boss tells him that what he says is deriding the government and that he will lose his job because of it. The boss claims that he was joking about firing him, but towards the end, we see the guy who made the joke opening letters along with Wiesler. This implies that the guy was fired for making the joke, or other “treasonous” actions against the Soviet Union. I found this interesting because it shows the lengths the government would go to to instill a sense of loyalty and respect for the country. They fear even small indications that a person may not be faithful to their country, and they take drastic actions (such as firing them) to ensure that they do not betray the country. It shows how people had to be very careful about what they said because they could face lots of troubles if they accidentally said something that seen as betrayal. It also shows the total control the government had over people’s lives, especially over their words and actions.
That's a great observation- I love how the film makers included those subtle nuances, like the guy making the joke opening letters behind Weisler and I particularly liked the red ink smudge as well.
DeleteI totally didn't notice that! I guess I just forgot the guy's face. If they are indeed the same person, that really just goes to show how uptight the government is. I wonder why that character ended up losing his job. After observing the atmosphere of that society, we can probably guess that character made another little joke-- this time, to the wrong official. The ice on which these citizens tread is so thin, and any tiny action taken the wrong way could lead to absolute destruction.
DeleteWhat impacted me the most within the film was Weisler's taking the opportunity to protect Dreyman and Sieland, as he felt the need to preserve morality and showed compassion for the two. He embodied the concept of individuality, and showed that everyone can make his/her own contribution to specific problems within society.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and Wiesler's morals are definitely shown to have changed throughout the film: from fully serving the State Security in the beginning, to perhaps losing his job to help Security's targets
DeleteIt was a little hard to keep up with since it was in German. Just pausing to drink some water, then looking up to find that i missed reading the subtitles to a part and was totally confused was a little irritating but was good in order to keep us paying attention. But back to the contents of the movie, it was really interesting to see how different the culture was; how strictly the state security would enforce themselves. I felt bad that Christa got penalized for telling the truth to the state. She wanted to help but since Wieseler lied and hid the typewriter, it made her look like a liar. I'm not sure why, but i found it cool how when Wiesler was sent in for interrogation, they removed the cloth on his chair. I kind of wondered where Wiesler's family was in his life and what impact that might have had to his character. But overall it was a pretty suspenseful and interesting movie, that i was able to enjoy.
ReplyDeleteThe film highlights Wiesler's behavior as he deliberates whether or not to incriminate Dreyman and his opinion of the totalitarian regime. At the start of the film, Wiesler passionately believes in GDR's system and teaches his students about methods of interrogation. In addition, his simple and functional apartment reflects Wiesler's faith GDR's system. His doubts begins after Grubitz requests his help to find dirt on minister Hempf because he wants to advance his own career, revealing to Wiesler the rampant abuse and corruption in the system. As Wiesler surveys Dreyman and Sieland, he realizes the beauty and passion of art that the couple demonstrates--dramatic performances, meaningful plays, beautiful music, passionate intercourse, and liberal beliefs-- which GDR's strict regime represses. At a pivotal point in the film, Wiesler runs into Sieland in a bar and convinces her not to go to Minister Hempf by assuring her abilities as an artist and asserting that her performances as an actress connects with her audience and inspires them. In the scene, Wiesler's usage of the word "audience" refers to both her performance audience and to Wiesler himself, as he is also an audience to her personal life. Eventually, Wiesler decides to save Dreyman and Sieland because he finally sees the beauty and passion of art and how the GDR's system abuses it. Thus, the film not only shows repression in the GDR's system, it also paints a picture of art and its meaning to people in society.
ReplyDeleteI found the way Wiesler used "audience" in the scene where he talks to CMS pretty clever. The film does a great job of showing the character developement of Wiesler and how he goes from an obedient Stasi member to someone questioning the morality of his actions as he begins to falsify his reports on Dreyman.
DeleteThe main characters of both Hamlet and The Lives of Others face a moral dilemma of whether to do what's right or to do what they have to. Hamlet must choose between avenging his father or obeying the law, whereas HGW must decide between arresting the writer or doing his job. Both of them decide to do what they believe is right as opposed to what the law requires them to do despite the consequences (death for Hamlet, prevention of promotion for HGW).
ReplyDeleteI concur, these works have similar themes of morality vs risk, and in both of them morality wins.
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that the moral ambiguity that the movie explores is very similar to Hamlet. Strangely enough, I didn't really notice this similarity until close to the ending of the film. I thought it was interesting how HGW decided he wanted to save George from being arrested. I thought exploring Wiesler's path from obedient stasi member to falsifying his reports at the end was also very interesting.
Delete1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the only non fantasy film that I actually liked. I really liked Weisler's kind nature and I was rooting for him not to get fired. I think that I would have preferred that Christa Maria lived but it wouldn't have the effect that it did if she didn't die. This was a pretty good movie and I enjoyed how Weisler and Georg have this friendship even though they've never really met before. My favorite character was Weisler :)
Yeah I definitely am with you on Christa living. I think the directors would have made their point if she suffered from fatal wounds, but still managed to survive. However, I can understand the reasoning as to why they would play it out the way they did and nevertheless it was a great film.
DeleteChrista living would have been a lot more satisfying for the audience, however, it would not have made such a powerful point. And I totally agree with you about Wiesler, he is an awesome charater. He risked a lot to follow his heart and be there for someone who had no idea who he was.
DeleteIn both Hamlet and Th Lives of Others the main characters are faced with the conundrum of doing what the powers at be demand of them or doing what they know is right, at great personal risk. In the play, Hamlet must either avenge the death of his Father, or live the rest of his days in perpetual servitude. Similarly, Both HGW and George must choose to do what the party expects of them, or they must risk their lives in order to do the right thing. Most importantly all of these characters do what most audience members would believe to be the morally right thing (though killing you father is a grey area) even though it can and will cause them serious strife later in life. Morality will always trump risk.
ReplyDeleteI saw the exact same comparison between the film and Hamlet. I also agree that morality trumps all other factors because our emotions lead us to believe that what we want to do is right.
DeletePersonally I wouldn't really change anything about the film. I enjoyed the fact that the film doesn't necessarily spell out to you what's going to happen. There are subtle hints from the dialogue and body language of each character about what's going to happen at the end, but you really don't pick up on these hints until after you've already seen the film. I thought the most interesting scene was the end when George finds out his girlfriend was an informant for the stasi and that he was saved by a former member of the stasi.I thought the ending where he ends up buying the film that George wrote years later was really well done too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with erik. I really was intrigued by the fact that George was betrayed by him girl friend but that is why I found this film so interesting. It had twists and turns at the right moment and I wouldn't change much in this film.
DeleteI also find it really interesting that the one person he trusted the most was the one who betrayed him, and a member of the Stasi, which he was so wary of, happened to be the one to save him. It goes to show how in East Germany, you could really never trust anyone, and ever action was filled with paranoia and caution.
DeleteI agree with you Erik that the film doesn't spoil what's going to happen next. The filmmakers did a good job at not spoiling too much information while keeping the audience curious on what will happen. Which makes each character's speech and action very crucial to the rest of the storyline.
DeleteI found the aspect of sneaking around and peering into another person's life very intriguing. So many parts of the movie reminded me of the novel 1984 written by George Orwell. I related it to how in 1984, the main character was so cautious of his every actions and we get to see from first person, Winston's thought process. And it was that there was always someone watching you, every second and moment. There wasn't concrete evidence to prove this to be fact, but it was what was known by the people. And in the movie, there is literally someone listening to this couple's life, its not a threat or just pretend. But there is actually someone documenting each and every conversation. I just found 1984 and this movie to be quite similar in this regards.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI reall enjoyed the movie. What I thought was really interesting was that, they called each other comrades, hoever they threaten their own citizen in a way as if they were prisoners. This movie really made me think about the concept of giving up freedom for order. I do think giving up privacy to some extent can ensure a more secure nation, however it is often hard to determine when is it too much. I think the movie was brilliantly done, and I would not change anything about it.
I agree with you on the fact that some freedom should be given up for security, however, I think it would have been better if Gerd told Christa than he moved the typewriter to a different place so she wouldn't have committed suicide.
Delete3. Personally I feel that this was easily one of the best films I have seen in quite sometime but I do feel that the ending scene could have been performed a little bit better with more suspense and even better acting. In the final scene HGW X77 had taken the type writer to prevent the writer from being caught by the Stasis who had been informed by the writer's lover. I really liked how in the film they had started with the opening scene that someone will act a certain way if they know information and you could really see that in Shasta when she was being interrogated. I felt that the way in which she had committed suicide could have been done a little bit better and not as quick. I feel that perhaps they could have extended the scene a bit more to show her guilt so we could really get a better understanding of how she felt. Another thing I would change in the film was to be more justice for the writer when he meets the man who started Operation Lazlo, perhaps he could have beaten him severely or let us see him get "messed up" by the Western government when the wall collapses. I felt that nothing happening to this sick man who basically tormented this writer should have suffered serious consequences in the film even as far as death.
ReplyDeleteI had a mixed reaction to this film. I thought that there were some interesting parts about the film but then there were some scenes that quite frankly were too much to handle. I thought there was too much sexual action in the film and that really wasn't necessary. That being said I thought that this movie had some good themes, such as privacy in regards to a secure country. I think that if people give up their privacy the nation could be more secure.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the film could have gone without the graphic sex scenes and still portray the story just as dramatically. However, I was horrified by the lack of privacy and think that it is unethical and a huge invasion of personal security.
DeleteWhile the amount of sex shown in the movie could be seen as too much, I believe that there is a purpose to having sex scenes in the movie. The difference between how Dreyman acts and how Hempf acts during sex with Christa shows how the GDR takes over one's life. Dreyman and Christa are attracted to each other, and that comes through in how they act towards each other. However, Christa does not show that same sort of passion towards Hempf and Hempf just uses her for his own pleasure, because he knows that she is helpless against him. It represents in a way how those under the strict influence of the GDR aren't as human as those rebelling against the government.
DeleteI think this film has a way of always making the view question what they think of the characters and changing their minds. Characters that initially seem "bad" turn out to be the good guys and vice versa. It also makes the audience feel for both the protagonists and antagonists. For example, even though Christa does terrible things and doesn't end up doing the "right thing" on multiple occasions, we can understand why she does what she does and the position she is put in to have to make those choices.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Alva
DeleteI can somewhat agree with you on this about Christa on the fact that we do kind of feel bad for her and somewhat understand but in my opinion I do not feel that the actions of betrayal were at all justified. She really didn't have to "mess around" with Stasi member in his car and her motivation in my opinion was selfish unlike the writer. The difference between the writer being her boyfriend and Christa was her boyfriend had to write to actually let people know what was going on in the East side of Germany unlike Christa her motivation to act was simply out of fame and appreciation.
4. I feel like this critique pinpoints the suspense of the story perfectly; ultimately everything falls upon Wiesler's conscience and his actions; watching his ethical fight with himself is the most stressful part of the movie. Although he begins as a extremely loyal Stasi member that takes his career mission extremely seriously, we see his slow reconsideration of what his job means, starting with questioning if trying to ruin a man's life just because an official is interested in his girlfriend is what his job was supposed to be. Although he wavers, almost turning in a report that would doom Dreyman, we see that ultimately, Weisler begins to become disillusioned with the government. He never, however, fully rebels, still contained by the oppressive government, and ends up doing exactly what he's told to do; steam letters open. Unlike his work with Dreyman, he is never allowed to become familiar with the people who's letters he opens. It is that sense of humanity and ethical wrongness that comes with harming an innocent individual for the wishes of government officials that truly brings out the reaction of disdain and rebellion in Weisler. Overall, this film was one of the best films I've watched recently, and I love the nuances in it.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Aileen! The way the critique pointed out the suspense was really spot on. I also agree wit how Weisler's relationship with the government and the characters. The way Aileen put it was perfect, "It is that sense of humanity and ethical wrongness that comes with harming an innocent individual for the wishes of government officials that truly brings out the reaction of disdain and rebellion in Weisler."
DeleteI liked the film overall and found it enjoyable to watch. However, if I had to change something about it, I'd probably want for some things to be cleared up. For example, CMS's death. It's not very clear whether or not it was an accident or a suicide because while she ran into the streets and kind of stood there and let the car hit her, suicide by car is not a very convenient/reliable way to quickly die (since if she lived they would chase her) and if she was trying to die then she was lucky that there was a car zooming down the street. Another thing that confused me was whether Wiesler was punished for doing a lousy job on the mission or for being accused of helping Dreyman not get in trouble.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't change anything for plot or character development because I think the film did a good job overall.
I was literally thinking of the exact same things in terms of her suicide. I felt like it was too convenient for a big truck to be driving by right when she ran out and that she was able to run in front of it without the driver hesitating/seeing her at all. It's the only aspect of the scene that made me think that it was possible for her death to not be a suicide, even though it was definitely filmed as a suicide.
DeleteAgreed. It was too convenient for the director to use this truck to kill CMS. Poorly thought out on the director's part. Had the director added the noise of the truck braking, the scene would have been all the more realistic. If suicide was the intent of the scene, the method of death should have been completely different, because death by car collision is difficult, as extreme injury is the more probable outcome.
DeleteBoth the film the Lives of Others and the play Hamlet ponder upon the question of morality. In the film, Wiesler had to decide whether or not spying on Georg and Christa-Maria for the GDR was moral. Hamlet spend the play discussing ways to kill his uncle that would not be considered as sinful under the veil of Christianity. Both main characters struggle with their conscience as they try to figure out what actions they each should take. Wiesler and Hamlet's questions about morality also seem to come from very similar places: obsession. Wiesler is drawn in by the lives of Georg and Christa-Maria and he starts to empathize towards them, no longer the distant man listening into the bugged conversations occurring in the apartment. Hamlet's own obsession with his mother's life and his father's death is why he seeks revenge on his uncle, but how exactly should he get that? In order to do what is right in their eyes, both characters dance upon the line of the status quo held up by the societies they live in, themselves in peril of being destroyed.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with the ending of the movie. I thought that the movie would end after they terminated Operation "Laslo", but the film continued through the fall of the Berlin Wall. Living in such a sad and hopeless country, I thought that Dreyman would stop writing after the death of Christa-Maria Sieland. However, I liked how he learned about the Stasi's surveillance on him and figured out how it was Wiesler who saved his life. He also realized that Christa-Maria Sieland had hurt him and was only looking out for her own self-interest. After the realization, Dreyman decided to seek out Wiesler. When Dreyman saw Wiesler, he didn't talk to him and merely got back into the car. But the very end made the previous moment very meaningful to me; just by looking at Wiesler, Dreyman had all the inspiration he needed to put out art from his soul into the world. I wish maybe the director could have added a part where Wiesler read some of the novel that was dedicated to him. I liked how Wiesler read some of Dreyman's work when he was still spying on him; it would have made the movie even more cathartic if Wiesler read a bit out of the newly published novel.
ReplyDeleteI was very shocked when Christa told Wiesler about where Georg hid the typewriter. Even though she was interrogated and she had to choose what's best for her or what's best for Gerog, I felt that Georg would've done anything for Christa. Also, I felt a lot of respect for Wiesler when he helped out Georg and Christa by faking the report and taking the typewriter. I felt frustrated when Christa committed suicide out of guilt because if she stayed for a couple of minutes longer and saw that the typewriter was gone, she would've been safe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts and feelings Grace!
DeleteI'm also very frustrated with the way how Christa dealt with the situation and is also very surprised how Wiesler helped them out.
However, I'm not surprised with how Christa dealt with the situation given its shown through her relationship with Georg. Its very obv Georg cares about Christa, her career, and the relationship. Rather I feel Christa cares a little bit more about her self/ career, given she was under a lot of pressure. But I think you can really see that from that one scene when George told her not to take the meds, shes an amazing actress, and does not need the other people/ guy she was going out to meet up with.
I was also shocked when christa told Wiesler about where the typewriter was. I thought they had a good relationship and that Georg really cared for her. But it is only in these difficult situations where one's true self shines. Through this, we see that Christa chose to do what benefitted her.
Delete1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the entire film, I feel so blessed to be living here in california in the 21 century. Just watching how the government was so strict, being under surveillance, the after affect of being caught by the government, has made me so much more grateful for the freedom/ rights we have. I can’t imagine how Dewymen?? (the writer dude) must have felt after all those years, after Christa’s death, when he found out he was under surveillance and how much protection he had/ how he got away with his “crime”. If I was in his position I would probably spend the rest of my life thanking the HGW dude and feel super guilty. If I was placed in Dewymen? Position I would never have the guts to publish an article about suicide. In comparison we have it so much easier now, we’re allowed to speak and publish our own opinions about anything and not get into trouble.
2. One similarity between the film and Hamlet is that in both stories, characters have to choose which side to offer their loyalty to. In The Lives of Others, Wiesler has two choices: either he can remain loyal to the State Security and allow them to find the typewriter that Dreyman hid under the floorboards, or he could help Dreyman by removing the typewriter before Security could find it. Wiesler chooses to do the latter, harming his career, but it is clear that his loyalty now lies with his moral code. Similarly, Hamlet must also choose between being loyal to his country by pretending like he never saw the ghost at all, or being loyal to his father by killing Claudius. In this case, Hamlet chooses to obey his father and avenge his death.
ReplyDeleteOne of the interesting things about this film was the character development of Weisler. His change from being a strict and devout member of the Stasi to a someone who broke free from the control of the government and helped Georg and Christa Maria. Seeing Weisler use his methodical ways to interrogate people who are suspected of rebelling against the GDR really contrasts with person he is after listening into Georg and Maria. Throughout this process, we really see who Weisler is, instead of the hard and emotionless person he seemed to be in the beginning. Through his character development, we see the difficulties one goes through as one is torn between the system that he had truly believed in and his own morals.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite aspects of the film was the character development that Wiesler went through. It was so interesting to see him transform from a cold, top ranking, and extremely loyal party member to someone a bit softer and able to sympathize with Dreyman and Christa. One scene I view as a very pivotal moment in Wiesler’s development is when he stops himself from asking the child in the elevator for the child’s father’s name. I also think that the fact that in the end Wiesler is willing to give up his high ranking position in the party for these two people who don’t even know who he is says a lot about how much he has changed. In general, I think Wiesler’s dramatic character development was very heartwarming— I believe I remember a part in the film in which one of the characters asserts that human nature cannot change, yet Wiesler was able to transform into a more compassionate person.
ReplyDeleteHi Cynthia! I also really enjoyed seeing his character develop and change throughout. I thought the subtlety of this shift (ex: the scene with the boy in the elevator, or the scene where he tells his assistant that Dreyman and his friends are describing a play and not the real conspiracy) was very artful and made the film and Wiesler's character more believable to me. I was very uplifting to know that people can change and that people have the ability to empathize and care for other people, whom they may not even know.
DeleteGiven the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch the entire film, but I made one noticeable connection between the film and Hamlet. Both characters are conflicted to choose to either obey the rules, or do what is morally right. Hamlet must choose to murder his father or not take action, while HGW must choose to do his job or arrest someone. In the end, both characters do what they think is right rather than following the rules. I think it can go both ways depending on the situation, but people usually do what they think is right at a particular instance because their emotions lead to imminent action.
This is spot on, and I agree. In the movie the main character fights constantly with his own emotions and make decisions based on what he felt was right or wrong. He has to fight against the ideals built into his head by the government, but at the same time work for the government. Both the characters are stuck in a dilemma where they have the make a imminent choice.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete2. Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
ReplyDeleteThe film connects with two of Hamlet’s major themes, Appearance/Illusion vs. Reality and Betrayal.
The theme of Appearance/Illusion vs. Reality is present throughout the show through the spying of Dreyman and his lover, Christa-Maria Sieland. Wiesler spied on the couple because they were suspected of being against the government at the time (GDR) and only until the end of the show did Dreyman realize that his whole apartment was being bugged and his life watched by Weisler. For a long time, he was under the illusion that he was safe because everything appeared to be normal. He even asks Minister Bruno Hempf at the end why he was the only one not being monitored and it was then that he learned the truth, that there were many detailed reports by the government about his daily actions taken over the span of months.
Weisler himself also embodies the theme of Appearance/Illusion vs. Reality and the theme of Betrayal. He appears to Christa-Maria in a bar and seems to be a very big fan of hers. He encourages her and supports her, only to later have to be the agent interrogating her. In this way, how he appeared to Christa-Maria was not who he had to be later on. Also, he put on another facade when pretending to help the Stasi but midway through switching to the side of Dreyman and Christa-Maria. His betrayal is shown in both these examples. When Christa-Maria first sees him as her interrogator, she must have felt betrayed that the man who showed her so much kindness was part of the organization that was detaining her. The Stasi also were betrayed by him because his loyalty shifted part way and he protected his target.
Elin! I think you were able to relate Hamlet's theme of Appearance/Illusion vs. Reality and Betrayal with The Lives of Others quite nicely! I agree that Wiesler embodies both themes, as he has an internal conflict of whether or not to side with GDR or Dreyman and Sieland. It was interesting to see that the timing was a large part of this film, as with anything in life. Wiesler chose to side with the Stasi in the beginning, but when he started to side with Dreyman and Sieland, the tempo of the scene shifted. Although Wiesler was uncertain of which side he was on and when do exemplify those attributes, he was ultimately able to get over his fear of the GDR and do what he thought was morally and ethically correct, which I deeply applaude and respect. On many levels I was able to connect with Wiesler, as we all do because we all have to make choices. As in business, life is about the price, place, promotion, and product that determine the outcomes of life.
DeleteI agree that Wiesler embodied the theme of betrayal from Hamlet since he first supported the GDR (aka the "bad guy") but later supported those who rebelled against it. I think his character was actually very similar to Gertrude, since she was initially loyal to Claudius but then switched her loyalty to Hamlet. Before, when she was loyal to Claudius, she betrayed her son, but when she decided to help Hamlet, she betrayed her husband. Anyway, I think your interpretation was amazing and I would have said the same!!!
DeleteI thought about this comparison too when I was watching the film, but you put it a lot more eloquently. I definitely agree though, I think the theme of appearance vs. reality was a huge influence in both Hamlet and the movie. I just think the way each character handled the facades were different.
DeletePrompt 2: Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
ReplyDeleteBoth the play Hamlet and the film The Lives of Others had the theme of spying in them. In Hamlet, spying was a recurring theme in among many of the characters. Claudius used Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on his nephew, Polonius spied on Laertes and Hamlet, and Hamlet spied on Claudius to find out if his uncle really killed his father. In The Lives of Others, the government used surveillance equipment to spy on people to see if they were doing anything illegal or against their country. Dreyman, the main character, was spied on because the government wanted to know if he was taking part in illegal activities, like writing about topics that were forbidden or publishing his works in West Germany.
I agree that both Wiesler in the film The Lives of Others and the characters in Hamlet spy on others. And I also think that both Wiesler and Hamlet face the dilemma of whether or not they should be spying others; Wiesler to Dreyman, and Hamlet to Claudius.
DeleteI agree! I think this is a really good comparison between Hamlet and The Lives of Others.
Delete2. Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
ReplyDeleteThe main characters of the two films have to make similar decisions regarding doing what they feel is the right choice or obeying orders/rules. In Hamlet, Hamlet himself has to make the decision of whether he should seek revenge or to just obey orders to be next in line for the throne. In this movie the main character Weisler has to make the choice of exposing Dreyman or doing what he feels is morally correct and letting Dreyman go. The two characters in the book and film also have to make decisions against themselves. In hamelet, hamlet says "to be or not to be", while in the movie the main character is constantly going against the belief his government and himself was built upon.
Prompt 4
ReplyDeleteAfter the "faithful supporter of the totalitarian regime" Stasi Commissar Gerd Wiesler was assigned to Operation Lazlo, Wiesler had to a conflict with morality between choosing to be a humane and sympathetic or being a loyal disciple of the GDR. I found this to be extremely intriguing to witness Wiesler transforming through his actions to succumb to his humane and sympathetic instincts. While watching the film, I considered stepping in Wiesler's shoes, and seeing what I would choose in his situation; whether to fully disclose Christa-Maria Sieland and Georg Dreyman's secrets, or manipulating and damaging government intelligence information. Once the Cold War had ended, Wiesler was released from his confinement of being a letter opener for GDR to becoming a free citizen in East Germany. Once Dreyman had pieced together the complete story and wrote a book in gratitude to Wiesler, it was heart warming to see that choosing to protect Dreyman from becoming arrested finally caught up to him and see him reap the rewards. This story is beautiful in every aspect.
There were many instances in this film where I realized that human nature, in terms of psychological aspects is really complicated. For example, when CMS committed suicide by jumping in front of the car, I was a little bit confused by her actions. If she wanted to die, she could have killed herself at the interrogation. If she killed herself there, Georg wouldn’t have gotten in trouble and the secret hiding place wouldn’t have been revealed. But, I realized that if CMS died there, then we would not have been able to see the deep relationship CMS had with Georg. In the end, it was the face of distrust/sadness/betrayal on Georg’s face that caused CMS to commit suicide. Another instance that I was kind of perplexed by was the fact that Gerd and Georg didn’t meet up (face to face) in the end, but rather they met through author and supporter. It would have been cooler if both of them met together and talked about what happened back then. But, I think the director chose to keep this from the audience because in real life, a successful artist might have wanted to keep his life secret. In addition, it establishes a hierarchy between Georg and Gerd. If I were to change the film, I would totally want to add what Georg wrote about in his book.
ReplyDeleteI was confused by her actions too! Based on her actions throughout the movie, such as almost cheating on Georg and betraying him, I didn't think that she loved him that much. However, after that scene, I also realized that she did love Georg a lot, even if she did do hurtful things to him.
DeleteI agree with O.Scott's critique on the movie. The way O.Scott described the suspense is almost spot on. The movie was constructed or written in a way that as an audience, it is hard to know what the characters might do in the next scene. Suspense is often created when the audience can't tell what the characters might do in a certain act. And in this movie, there were many times where we don't know what might happen. For example, the spy could've ratted out the writer anytime he wanted to and many times he almost did, but at the end he never did. Those times of moral struggle created suspense for the audience because we always want to guess what is going to happen. Later on at the end of the movie the writer wanted to find the spy to thank him but when he did find him he didn't actually do it. As audience when I saw this I was waiting for a happy reunion but i didn't actually get that, what i got was pure suspense. All of these little segments added together is really what made the movie so enjoyable to watch.
ReplyDelete1. This movie actually really surprised me. I think that there were a lot of aspects that I didn't expect in it. The whole movie really emphasized the struggle between morality and responsibility. In the beginning, we are introduced to Wiesler as being an obedient Stasi who questions traitors and gets what they want done, but we can see through his spying on Dreyman that he begins to make a connection with them and empathize with their story. He begins to have an inner battle with himself and I think the instance where he talks to Christa-Maria and tries to make her feel better about herself and go back home is where he breaks through the shell that the Stasi has created around him. Overall, I thought that this movie was really interesting and had a very touching message.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the movie highlights the conflict between morality and responsibility. In the beginning of the movie I thought that Wiesler valued responsibility over morality. However, as Wiesler develops a connection with Dreyman and Christa-Maria, he ultimately chooses his morality over his duty toward the government.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I want to reflect on the aspect of freedom or rather the lack of it. At first I thought the movie was slow and boring. There were a few moments of suspense during the search scene and the stasi bugging the apartment scene. But there wasn't much going on plot wise until the ending. My opinion changed when i reflected back on it after the movie was over. I realized what this movie was trying to describe the setting of life under the oppressive socialist rule. I had to look beyond the plot. It was very interesting seeing all the trouble the satsi/ police went through to put people under servallence. People had to watch their every move. The punishment was severe for those caught speaking against socalism after all, the secret agent the helped the writer was sentenced to 20 years in the mail room for treason. The entire side of Germany had their freedom of speech and privacy taken away. Every move and word were watched and listened. This movie made me realized that there are lot of freedoms we have in America in which we take for granted.
ReplyDeleteNice Xiao! I personally feel there are a few things you've mentioned which might be considered redundant, but I agree it had many strong allusions and impact overall when bringing in the themes of individualism and historical context from German Socialism in the late 20th century.
Delete1. React to any aspect of the film.
ReplyDeleteNormally, after watching a film or movie that has a clear “bad and good guy”, most of us tend to support the good character. However, for me, this movie completely flipped upside down the habit of choosing sides. In the beginning of the film, play writer Dreyman is targeted for his pro-West ideologies. With agent Gerd Wiesler, a.k.a. AGW/XX7, tasked of keeping track of Dreyman’s conversation to collect information in order to find out if the play writer was a traitor to the country. This relationship between Dreyman and Wiesler continues, but very subtly, Wiesler starts to support Dreyman by withholding information to his superiors. With the STASI member sacrificing his career to protect the target which indeed committed a crime, he transitioned into the “good side”, which was only overt near the end of the movie. The character’s transition was interesting to me, since even though the movie could have ended with Wiesler logically keeping his job, the movie incorporated the idea of how people are able to change, just as how the people of Berlin accomplished change in society with the fall of the Wall and re-unification of East and West.
4. The main struggle that the characters in the movie, and in real life, face is that they have the ability to choose. They struggle to make the right decisions and cannot always anticipate the negative consequences of their actions. Therefore, no matter what government or society someone lives in, they will always have the ability to choose. While this is a good thing for people (since they can do what they believe and fight for what they believe), it makes life more difficult. When even small decisions can have serious negative impacts, as they do in The Lives of Others, it is much harder to decide what to do. People have to be much more careful with what they say and do, and think twice about everything.
ReplyDeleteLife might be easier for human beings if the ability to choose was taken away, but people without decisions would merely be robots. In The Lives of Others, if Dreyman didn’t have the ability to choose, he would never have decided to write his paper for the West German newspaper. Even though he might have remained safe, he wouldn’t have influenced anyone with his writing. The same can be said for Wiesler, who would have kept his job if he had told the truth. But by choosing not to tell the truth and to instead protect Dreyman and his friends, he helped them expose the truth about the GDR, and protected innocent people from losing their liberty. These characters’ ability to make decisions is what allowed them to rebel against their system, and is therefore what made the movie interesting.
1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteWiesler really reminds me of Snape, from Harry Potter. They both betrayed the side they were supposed to be working for in order to help the main character, and were both punished severely for their actions. Snape was killed, and Wiesler is assigned to mail letters for presumably his entire life. However, because of their selfless actions, the main characters were able to accomplish their goals.
In addition, they both appear to be very lonely, guarded people. In the movie, Wiesler hires a prostitute, and after his paid time is up, he almost begs her to stay for longer while Snape watched the girl he loved marry his worst enemy.
Damn, very interesting connection. I definitely see Weisler in the role of the silent, seemingly one-dimensional, seemingly-subordinate, but as a surprise turns out to be the good guy kind of character - just like Snape. In that way he also reminds me of the Gatekeeper from Thor, who disobeys his orders to protect Asgard from Loki at the end of the film (or something like that.. I cannot remember)
DeleteI think that it’s interesting how the characters’ actions in the movie affect the audience’s perception of them. For example, in the beginning of the movie, I didn’t like Weisler’s character because he was a strict Stasi officer who helped to enforce the East German government. Later on, Weisler’s actions show that he is not what he seems. He is actually a person who is able to make moral decisions, and he is not someone who mindlessly follows the government’s orders. For instance, Weisler takes the typewriter from Dreyman’s apartment to protect him from being arrested. In the end, I admired Weisler because he was faced with a difficult situation where he had to choose between his morals and the government.
ReplyDeleteI also didn't really enjoy Wiesler's character in the beginning because as you said he was portrayed as a strict officer who seemed to be only loyal to the government. But it was interesting to see the more sympathetic side of him and that he values morals rather than orders from the government.
DeleteThis idea that the audience can see how how the characters are multifaceted can be related to Shakespeare's style of writing. We are able to sympathize with every character despite their "vendettas"
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that Weisler's personality is very dynamic as in the beginning of the film he seems to be portrayed as a creepy man who is spying on this family, but in reality he does have morals.
DeleteIn the movie, I thought that it was interesting that the writers wrote an article about how the number of suicides had stopped being recorded, and in the end Christa added herself to the number of suicides. The reason why they stopped recording the number suicides was prompted because they did not want that number to represent what the government was doing, but as shown in Christa’s case the government was the reason for her suicide. If it wasn’t for the government getting involved Christa would have never had to turn her back on Dreyman and rat him out.
ReplyDeleteI think that is a very interesting point that I hadn't thought of! It didn't even cross my mind that Christa became another addition to that unnamed number of suicides at the end of the movie. For me personally I was just too upset that she had to die. That her and Dreyman couldn't end up happy together. All because of that crazy oppressive government.
DeleteI also think that's a very interesting point! This makes her death even more significant because it portrays the horrible results of an oppressive government.
Delete4. O.Scott, A New York Times writer commented, in his review of the film that, "'The suspense comes not only from the structure and pacing of the scenes, but also, more deeply, from the sense that even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will. You never know, from one moment to the next, what course any of the characters will chose.'"
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with O.Scott's comment on this film. Throughout the entire film the audience doesn't actually quite understand what is going on in Weisler's head. I think that specific ambiguity provided the riveting feeling that could keep an audience engaged for as long as the movie was.
If it was just a simple movie about the oppressiveness of east Berlin, it would be sad, depressing, and uninteresting. However, that was not the case with this movie, as the Free Will aspect provided the audience (just as much as the characters) with hope. And as we learned in the movie "Hope always dies last", therefore it was essential that free will was portrayed in the movie to give the audience hope for Christa and Dreyman and everyone else.
I loved the movie.
1. React on any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteI want to reflect on Christa’s and Georg’s relationship, and how it progresses throughout the film. At first, I thought they were very close, and did not have any tension between them. However, as we started seeing scenes between Christa and the minister, and how he was using her in return for “protection”, I began to doubt my initial stance on their relationship. I started believing that they had a relationship full of lies and deceit, such as the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia right before Hamlet breaks up with her. However, my perception of their relationship changed soon again when Georg confessed that he knew about Christa’s drug abuse and meetings with the minister, and reassured her that he still loved her. Towards the end, I yet again rethought my position on their relationship when Christa told the Stasi about Georg’s rebellious texts. By shifting the audience’s opinion on their relationship throughout the movie, the director showed the complexity of life in East Berlin during the GDR regime, and it was this quality that made the movie interesting.
One specific aspect that really intrigued me about this film, is Wiesler's transformation. Initially he is meant to spy on Georg and take notes on almost every detail of his life. After developing a different perspective on Georg and even his relationship with Christa, he realized that there is so much more to him. He notices his struggles and how much he has to face in his life, and starts to become more sympathetic. Even when Wiesler approaches Christa at the coffee shop and pretends to be a random fan, his goal was to make her feel better and send her back to Georg since he loved her the most. There is a lot of character development in this film from every character, however I personally think Wiesler had the biggest transformation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. There is more character transformation in the movie is much greater then any of the character has in Hamlet. I agree with you about Wiesler he changed a lot throughout the movie, and he grew as a person. He was able to change his mindset and change even though it cost him his job.
DeleteI completely agree. I also feel that the elevator scene with the little boy was very important in showing his transformation. It's really interesting how he began to feel for Georg and Christa and even went to the coffee shop to hep Christa go back to Georg. His character transformation is truly exceptional in the movie and I'm glad he began to use his emotions instead of staying emotionless and use inhumane practices.
DeleteI really like the film, but if I had the chance to change something, I would like to change Christa‑Maria Sieland's death. In the movie, when she was walking towards the road, Gerd Wiesler seemed to look like he knew what she was doing to do. I think it would have been better if Gerd told Christa that he took the typewriter and hide it somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Benhur, the death of Christa-Maria seemed all too sudden and could've been for reasons other than committing suicide in front of a bus.
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that her death was sort of out nowhere. There was no reason to kill herself over the fact that he hid the typewriter and hid it somewhere else.
DeleteThis scene was a bit confusing to me too. I felt like the scene did not fit the storyline as well as it could have been.
DeletePersonally, I really enjoyed the ending when Georg found out about the spying devices in his apartment and all the secrets that have been hidden from him. But most importantly he realized that Wiesler was the one who had been spying on him, yet Wiesler did not write everything he heard in the reports. This is a major turning point because Georg realizes that although Wiesler is a member of the Stasi, or secret police, he still tried to help him and protect him. Wiesler risked his own position in the State Security to help Georg. This shows a more sympathetic side of Wiesler compared to the beginning when he was portrayed as an extremely strict police. And at the end, I thought it was sweet that Georg dedicated a book to thank him, which I thought showed a shift in perspective for both characters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the ending was pretty good. I liked that Dreyman found out that Wiesler had helped him to evade the Stasi, but I think that the ending would be improved if the two actually met in the end. Also, it was pretty nice of Dreyman to dedicate the book to Wiesler.
Delete2. Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
ReplyDeleteI think it was very interesting how each character was depicted in "Lives of Others." Most films and stories in general have a very clear protagonist and antagonist. But like we talked about in class, Shakespeare is able to project various perspectives on each character, allowing us to sympathize with every individual, even the "antagonist." In the film, Dreyman is portrayed as the arm of a villain simply because he was spying on Weisler. But as the film goes on you see him sympathize with Weisler, hiding bits and pieces of his observations from the GDR. Just like how Hamlet was first considering to kill Claudius, we see him taking time to deliberate his actions. Both the audience and the characters in each story have a moral obligation to see multiple perspectives in each situation.
3. How would you change the film?
ReplyDeleteIf I could change any part of the film I feel like I would change the part of the movie where Christa-Maria dies. The reason I would choose to change that part of this film is because a lot of that scene was very abrupt, mixed together, and confusing to watch. It was also just a little bit random in the storyline of the movie. Because of this I think I would try and slow down and separate each event in that scene so that it becomes a little bit more understandable. Other than that I liked how the rest of the movie was laid out and wouldn't change anything else.
I agree! I didn't think it added any depth or anything really to the film. I think it could have been better with her. They could have created some sort of conflict between Dreyman and her to add to the storyline or something..
DeleteI really loved the end of the film and how Dreyman dedicated his new book to Wiesler. I thought that it was perfect given how Wiesler is the one who saved Dreyman from being prosecuted for crimes against the GDR or from probable death. Even though Dreyman couldn't bring himself to actually meet Weisler face to face and thank him for what he did or talk to him in general, it was kinda poetic for him to write a new book and discreetly thank him through his dedication. I also really liked how they showed Weisley's change throughout the movie, especially in the elevator scene with the little boy, where he stopped himself from asking the boy what his father's name was. I thought that was a huge moment in terms of character development, and set the scene extremely well for him to do what he did with helping Dreyman and Christa later on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment about the change in attitude we see in Wiesler after the elevator scene! I think it really shows that peoples' attitudes can change, despite having lived in an oppressive and narrow-minded society such as the GDR.
DeleteI completely agree!. The end of the film was my favorite part of the movie. I loved seeing those two extreme characters become more than their political parties and genuinely appreciate each other at the end.
DeleteI really liked how the film depicted the morality issues especially the elevator scene. I really think this film illustrated that nothing is truly black and white, and that characters aren't necessarily all bad. Dreyman is a perfect example of this because he changes from the one of the most hated characters to one of the most liked in the eyes of the viewers.
DeleteI also liked the elevator scene because to me it showed how Wiesler began to realize that his work in the Stasi was wrong and that practically everybody, even his own neighbors and their children, think that the Stasi are evil. The scene definitely marked a turning point in Wiesler where he begins to find his soft side after we first saw him being so cold hearted, such as when he marks down a student for having a dissenting opinion. Overall, I liked how the movie questioned whether a soldier, or in this case a secret police officer should question his orders if he believes they are morally wrong.
DeleteBeing that the movie was in German made the movie a lot harder to concentrate when watching but overall I had a really great time watching the film. It showed us that a lot of places didn't have as much freedom as America did. Even the smallest jokes made to the government could mean the loss of your job. This really showed just how limited freedom of speech was during the time and how self expression really wasn't a thing. HGW had to choose between either arresting the writer or completing his job. He does what he thinks is the right thing to do but ultimately ends up dealing with the consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the freedom of speech was limited at that time before Berlin Wall falls down in 1989. I also enjoyed watching the film too.
DeleteProbably my favorite movie. However, I'd change one thing, and one thing only: the way Christa Maria Sieland died. As Owen said right after CMS's death, "[Director] doesn't know how to kill off character, brings in random truck to kill her." CMS's death was way too random for my taste. I read in a summary about the movie that CMS committed "suicide" after running out of the apartment. This intention makes perfect sense, as CMS ratted Dreyman out on numerous occasions. However, the way CMS "committed suicide" looked more like an accident, because CMS did not look at the truck that hit her, as the wound from the collision was on the side of her body and head. This is what made the truck-roadkill seem so random. Had the director asked CMS's actress to suddenly stop in the middle of the road or slow down dramatically and face the oncoming truck in horror or with acceptance, the scene would have made a little more sense. Otherwise, kill her in a different way, please!
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that the death was too sudden, and it felt like the movie ended too abruptly after that. There were many small details that did not get sorted out, but it also made the viewers think, such as how the typewriter disappeared from the hiding place. CMS's death was too sudden, after such a long plot before, and it was very random and the movie ended shortly after.
Delete4. I think that what O. Scott said was true. While some of the scenes were quite expectable, a large majority of the film was left to how the characters would do. For example, in Christa-Marie's interrogation scene, the audience was left to wonder what she would do. Even in such an oppressed society, she was given the choice to save herself while sacrificing the safety of her loved one, or to lie and risk her own life and live confined to a jail cell.
ReplyDeleteI especially agree with Scott's wording of how "individuals are burdened with free will". In a general context, people would prefer to have free will over being oppressed, or forced against their will. However, Scott mentions that they are "burdened" with a choice, that perhaps, people would prefer not to have a choice.
I agree with what you said about how in some situations, people would rather not have a choice. I think what ultimately led Sieland's suicide was the knowledge that the Stasi had given her a choice during the interrogation, gave her an option could have saved Georg from the Stasi - and she had willingly betrayed the person who mattered most to her. If the Stasi had extracted the location of the typewriter out of her by torture with no options, at least she could justify to herself that she had no other choice. But when faced with losing her love or losing her career, she made a choice, and she realized too late that perhaps she had made the wrong choice.
DeleteI liked the ending of a film about a book being addressed to Wiesler from Dreyman. I learned that freedom of speech was limited at 1980s because telling a joke about the government will make that person lose a job. Overall, I enjoyed watching the film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Satoru. This film definitely had a lot of historical accuracy and people can learn a lot by watching it. To be more specific, freedom of speech was limited in East Germany where this film takes place and not in the West. This can be seen when Dreyman writes an article on the high suicide rates and has it sent West Germany for publication and to hurt the DDR and weaken the Stasi control. I also enjoyed watching this film :)
DeleteI was very moved by the end of the film. We can see the full transition of Wiesler, who is initially shown to be an obedient member of the STASI and Georg, who is cast as a radical playwright. Wiesler really seems to believe in his party at the beginning. In fact when a student accused his interrogation practices as inhumane, Wiesler marked his name on the seating chart, implying that he takes questions about his party very seriously. But throughout the film we see him becoming less extreme, like in the elevator scene with the boy, where he stopped himself right before asking for the father's name, demonstrating that he sees the emotional pain it could cause. And this development can truly be seen in the last scene. I loved how Georg dedicated his new book to Wiesler. It showed how the two characters, who represented the extremes, were now less polarized and genuinely appreciated one another.
ReplyDeleteIt provided a sense of closure that I wasn't expecting from the film.
I completely agree. I also really liked what you said about the dedication of the book. That was a really cool and sincere moment and you said it in a really poised manner.
DeleteI found Wiesler to be a really interesting character through this film. His character showed depth and growth and it was really interesting to see how his motives changed from starting strictly as a job with the government to something he grew an emotional connection to. I thought it was really cool that you could see how someone's life could impact someone completely different, especially because they had never met. The idea that you could relate to someone you don't know through watching their life on a screen was really fascinating to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, that was really cool.
DeleteThis film relates it Hamlet in many ways but most importantly, the themes of lies if evident in both the book and the movie. In the book Hamlet pretend to be mad and goes against the king in a discreet way. This is the same in the movies when the guy watches over the writer without his knowledge. He knows everything about the writer while the writer has no idea that he is being watched. The same applies in hamlet, Hamlet knows everything about the King but the king has no idea that Hamlet know that he killed Old Hamlet. The ending of the movie was one that is much better than the one in the book because the writer dedicated his book towards to guy who saved him.
ReplyDeleteI also recognized the theme of lies in both the movie and the book. The ending of the movie also interested me and I felt it tied the whole movie together.
Delete2) I missed part of the movie, but I think the film The Lives of Others relates to Hamlet that both Gerd Wiesler and Hamlet face a moral dilemma. Both Wiesler and Hamlet try to find out the hidden secrets of others who they suspect. Wiesler faces the choice of whether he should spy on the couple. Hamlet faces the choice of whether he should take revenge on his uncle, who killed his father. The film also relates to the theme of deceit, where when Wiesler spies on Dreyman is like when the characters in Hamlet constantly spy on each other. Claudius and Gertrude spy on Hamlet, Polonius spies on Laertes, and Hamlet spies on Claudius.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the film was very interesting because of the historical aspects that were integrated to show the situation at that period of time. It helps the viewer understand the situation during that time in East Berlin and also the degree of oppression and limited freedom there was. I also thought that morality was a very important aspect in the film. The characters were unpredictable, and you didn’t know if they would betray someone else, even someone very close, because of the oppressive society they lived in. Even though it seemed like they had “free will”, they were actually being spied on without themselves knowing. I thought that the part where the typewriter suddenly disappeared was significant, because it makes the viewers wonder how Dreyman snuck it out and hid it and why he would do that if he was a Stasi, emphasizing the morality of the film as well.
ReplyDeleteThe film and Hamlet connect through the theme of betrayal and deception. In the film, Dreyman's girlfriend is disloyal to Dreyman with the state police and gives up the location of the typewriter. Similarly, Hamlet faces betrayal from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when they are sent to spy on him by Claudius and Gertrude. Manipulation and lies are also evident throughout the film and Hamlet. Wiesler leaves a lot of important details out of the transcript and later breaks into Dreyman's house to move the typewriter. In Hamlet, Hamlet feigns his madness as a part of his plan for revenge for his father's murder. In both of these situations, Wiesler and Hamlet lie for what they believe is the greater good.
ReplyDeleteI agree the film and Hamlet share betrayal and deception. I think it is a good connection between the betrayal of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There was a lot of betrayal because Christa-Maria betrayed Georg with the other man and giving up the location of the typewriter.
DeleteReact to any aspect of the film.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was an interesting concept for Wiesler to spy on Dreyman. I thought it was cool how Wiesler helped Dreyman, when he rang the doorbell multiple times for him to catch his girlfriend getting out of the car with the man she was with. I also liked the timeline that it was filmed in, because it shows the life in a different time period and the culture shown is very interesting as well. The aspect of themes shows that there has been alot of lies being passed within this film, which also occurs in Hamlet. At the end, it shocked me how the actress died because she gets hit by a car, and it comes out of nowhere. The fact that Christa Marie had betrayed Dreyman was very disturbing as he trusted her alot, and she getting killed was a sort of karma hitting her at the end.
I agree with the part about the time period being different. It was very interesting to see human nature when under an oppressive government. I found the play quite eye opening because not only did the play delve so deeply into human nature, but it showed the effect a very different government has on its people. It was interesting to see what this form of government did.
DeleteI totally agree with you and love how you not only describe the scene, but you also compared that scene to the play Hamlet. Also I like how you described the ending as the karma because I believe one can really argue that the whole movie has opinions of karma.
DeleteI love the way this movie goes so deep into human nature. It raises so many questions about humanity including about morals, right and wrong? It is so interesting the way it brings up deception, lies, and manipulation. I love the way Wiesler is initially a bad guy who supports the government, but as the movie goes, he changes and we get to see this change. I especially like the way we learn so much about him even though he doesn't talk much. His character is very intriguing to me. I also would like to point out how Wiesler tries to help Dreyman by letting the vehicle cross the border, but that was Dreyman's test to see if his apartment was bugged. His intention to help Dreyman hurt him. In the end, however he saves Dreyman by taking the typewriter out before he could get caught.
ReplyDeleteI liked Wiesler's character as well. He shows how it is capable for people to change over time. I also liked how he is able to act out upon his own beliefs, choosing to do what he thinks is right instead of following his superiors and practically everyone else. He was certainly in a sticky situation and I think he did a fairly good job of doing whatever he could to save Dreyman and also (unfortunately unsuccessfully) the wife.
DeleteI also like how Wiesler's character changes throughout the film. If the film had been about an ordinary citizen fighting against the oppressive government, the film's message would not have been as powerful. It was Wiesler's position in the government and his internal conflict that effectively brought up the questions of human nature. The story of the villain stepping back and reflecting on his choices is the part that really resonates with the audience.
Delete2. I think that this movie is thematically very different than Hamlet. While Hamlet empathizes with the victim of spying, The Lives of Others takes the exact opposite direction, empathizing with the spy instead. Dreyman is much like Hamlet as in they both have a grand dream with an invisible enemy. They both have female significant others who are pressured into betraying their other. However, the difference lies in Wiesler, who is obviously the protagonist of the story. While he is the listener, he reacts very differently than Claudius. In a way, Hamlet and The Lives of Others both touch upon the topic of betrayal, but rather as alternate views on the same theme, as opposite sides of the same coin.
ReplyDeleteThis movie is probably the only foreign language movie that I have watched until the end. Not because I was supposed to, but because it was very interesting to watch the film with my previous knowledge of German history and how this fiction fits into the history. How one can change his/her idea like that through all the hardship really reveals the human nature of the director's opinions.
ReplyDelete3. How would you change the film?
ReplyDeleteThe film was not actually bad, despite being in a foreign language. It was quite lengthy, but that amount of time was well-invested in building up each character's personalities. Even the not-so-appropriate scenes seemed to be a key part of the storytelling, emphasizing themes of love and romance. Towards the very end of the film though, when Dreyman seeks out Wiesel, I kind of wanted to see the two meet each other and maybe exchange a conversation. I was a bit puzzled to see why Dreyman ended up getting back into the taxi instead of greeting Wiesel. That man had sacrificed his career to let Dreyman off the leash, the least he could do for him was give a thank you. While the dedication in Dreyman's future play was also satisfying, I felt like there could have been more thanks should the two have met each other again. Maybe they could do it after the new play was released, but I still think it would be better if the two characters meet face to face, perhaps giving a bit more closure to everything that has happened.
1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteI really like Wiesler because of his strong sense of justice and morality. He joined the Stasi in for the sake of his country, instead of for his personal gains. This can be seen when he questions Grubitz, "Is this why we joined?" when he is given the orders to tap Dreyman for Minister Hempf's own sexual desires. His sense of morality becomes more apparent as he learns more about Dreyman, and eventually decides to spare Dreyman by falsifying and not reporting specific details in his reports on Dreyman. Ultimately, Wiesler saves Dreyman from the Stasi at the expense of his own career. He is stripped of his title and is exiled into the lowest departments within the GDR and spends the rest of his days checking and sending mail.
I really enjoyed the ending, where Wiesler buys Dreyman's book because there was a hidden meaning to Wiesler's words. He responded to the clerk, "[the book] is for me." On the surface, it means he is buying the book for himself. The way I saw it, however, Wiesler was referring to the dedication. Wiesler, by saying, "it's for me," he is saying that the book was written for Wiesler.
I agree with your analysis of Wiesler's personality. I definitely felt the same in thinking that Wiesler had a strong sense of justice and loved that Dreyman eventually figures out how the events played out and writes a book in gratitude for Wiesler.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of Wiesler's personality. I definitely felt the same in thinking that Wiesler had a strong sense of justice and loved that Dreyman eventually figures out how the events played out and writes a book in gratitude for Wiesler.
DeleteI believe that The Lives of Others depicted humanity in a positive light even though some may argue that is not the case as the whole government ignores the simple inalienable rights that the US gives its citizens. However, the fact that even in this seemingly dictatorial regime people were able to expose the truth and a inside man in the government managed to do what is right indicates that there is good in everyone. This moral dilemma is almost identical to Hamlet as Hamlet wants to do what is right but he doesn’t know exactly whether seeking revenge is right or not. In this movie, the spy debates whether he should disclose the information about the couple like he is supposed to.
ReplyDeleteI found Wiesler's change of heart and character quite interesting throughout the movie; especially through the scene when he was in the elevator with the young boy. When the boy tells Wiesler that his father told him that Wiesler is a bad guy since all he does is arrest people, Wiesler was quick to respond saying "What is your.." and then he trailed off. It was pretty evident that he was going to ask for the little boy's father's name, but something inside him stopped him and he instead asked for the name of the boy's ball. I feel that this scene was pivotal in the character transformation of Wiesler. He started off as an emotionless member of the STASI but this scene shows how he started to let his heart and emotions come into play by sparing this kid's father's life. This character transformation was the biggest throughout the movie, and in the end we also saw how Wiesler tried to save Dreyman by taking the typewriter out before he could get caught. The fact that he was willing to risk his career to save him shows the peak of his character transformation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe characters in the film are stuck pondering similar questions as Hamlet. In his soliloquy after encountering Fortinbras's men, Hamlet asks "What is a man\If his chief good and market of his time\Be but to sleep and feed?" Likewise, Jerska asks "what's a director if he can't direct?" Both come to the conclusion that the answer is "nothing," as do Dreyman and Sieland. While Hamlet is spurred to action by this realization, Jerska decides the only route is to commit suicide. Sieland and Dreyman decide that their only routes are to "play by the system."
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Wiesler is forced to choose between doing what he knows is right, and doing what is expected of him. He ultimately chooses to do what is right, concealing Dreyman's subversive activities from LtCol. Grubitz and Hempf. Similarly, Hamlet struggles with and eventually launches a coup against his uncle, who gained the throne,rightfully Hamlet's, by murdering the king.
They were all great actors, but I found the character Wiesler to be the most haunting and the most mysterious. Wiesler spent most of the movie devoid of any emotions. We were watching a blank wall. We were watching a facade of someone who was internally changing but could not express outward emotions. We were watching a man with a mask fading in and out of reality and illusion. On one hand, Weisler wants to protect Dreyman and his family after sympathizing with them; but on another, he understands what happens if he does not do his duty as a spy. His whole character is prefaced on maintaining a deadpan face, trained by the Stazi to act this way as an interrogator. However, as the movie continues, we see this deadpan turn slowly from his job into an act of insecurity and survival. We never completely understand what Wiesler is thinking, but that only adds to the power of his acting. We spend the whole movie trying to understand, “What does Wiesler plan to do? What is he processing right now?” We never fully like or dislike his character, but we sympathize with him. The actor who played Wiesler shows us a character who does not fully understand himself, but fully understands his situations. The actor who played Wiesler displays a range of emotions by a slight movement of the face, by a slight break of the deadpan, and by showing subtle facial expressions. Even in the end of the movie, Wiesler maintains that deadpan, even when he only slightly breaks the deadpan to reveal a subtle smile.
ReplyDeleteThe actor who played Wiesler shows that the best acting sometimes isn’t the “most acting.” The actor showed us that to be a powerful actor, you don’t have to dominate the screen. The actor showed us that sometimes you can convey the most feelings without many words and actions.
I think the idea of not understanding one's true self ties perfectly with Hamlet, as we are carried through the piece with Hamlet's sense of emotional trumoil and confusion. I am surprised at how well both characters were developed and even though they have overt differences, both have a surprising amount of similarities in their depth.
DeleteI feel like both pieces really show the sense of potential confusion one would feel towards a character; for Wielser, we want to hate hate because his job is to essentially arrest people and doom them for crimes that they might not have committed or for petty crimes that do not deserve such harsh punishment. He however shows his good side when he saves Dreyland by not reporting the computer and has shown tremendous sympathy-- similarly in Hamlet, we see Hamlet as this character who is trying to find purpose in life, yet he does so in an unorthodox method, and eventually even ends of with the intention of murder. I like how both characters were complex and not one dimesional. That just made them more relatable, and I think both pieces did a great job developing complex anti-heros who cannot be described as good nor bad.
ReplyDeleteI agree I think the film is very good at creating tension amongst the characters for the viewer to try and understand on a deeper level. Both the movie and the book share many similar traits to each other, making it easier to understand in a way once you are familiar with the story.
DeleteIf I were to change any part of the film, I would change how Christa-Maria Sieland's death. It was too abrupt and confusing since there was another important scene going on and suddenly, she runs outside into a car. Overall, I really enjoyed the film.
ReplyDeleteI think it was supposed to be that way though, while I do feel I wanted more closure with her character, it ended abrupt because she basically committed suicide. It was unexpected by all the viewers and main characters in the movie so it was added in as shock value.
Delete1. The one thing about the movie that really did stick out to me would be, the acting performances. Ulrich Mühe, who played Gerd Wiesler was absolutely captivating in his role and so was Sebastian Koch as Georg Dreyman. While I watched the movie, I was shocked about how I seemed to never want to look away from their performances on the big screen. I felt that they were believable and really could exist during this period of turmoil in USSR or well modern day Russia. I really watch and love all types of films from historical documentaries to foreign films to star wars so I have seen a lot of different acting performances but these international duo of actors were phenomenal. I really would love to watch this movie again, especially because of these two actors. My personal favorite acting scene in this movie would be at the end of the movie were he rolls up behind him in his car and just drives away plus the book store scene. Because of the no words said it is all shown on a personal level. I thought the acting was great.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest connection between Hamlet and the film is that both characters had to choose whether to follow rules or go against the rules. Both characters eventually showed their true self and did what they think was right. Hamlet made the decision to avenge while HGW made the decision to go against the government.
ReplyDeleteThis is the biggest connection because both of the characters wanted to do the right thing no matter what the consequences were. Hamlet knew his plan wouldn't end well and Wiesler knew how dangerous it was to go against the government.
Delete4. I agree that the suspense of the movie not only comes from the plot but from the character development. The part of the film that keeps you on the edge of your seat is Weisler's conflict between his job and his conscience. Although he questions the ethics of the government, he does not immediately turn his back on it, probably because the government training and ideology have been ingrained in him for so long and he cannot abandon his lifelong teachings so easily. Because we are unsure of his loyalty, it is always suspenseful to watch Weisler make a decision between following orders or doing what he feels is right. One moment of this struggle is when Weisler is talking to the boy in the elevator and almost asks the name of his dissident father, but then stops and thinks about the ethics of harming an innocent individual and instead asks for the name of his ball. The "sense that even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will" captures the theme perfectly. Even Weisler, the hard line Stasi officer who was against and probably never experienced freedom his entire life, is inspired by Dreyman and Christa to walk away from the oppressive society after witnessing their free will, passion, and spirit.
ReplyDeleteWoww... This was a great film. I will admit, it was a bit difficult for me to keep track of the names of all the characters, and at one point I passed out and missed something important, but I read the plot synopsis to fill in all the gaps of my knowledge. I am very impressed by this film's attention to detail. There is a film technique called Chekhov's gun, where objects, characters, or ideas that are introduced early on in the film become relevant and important to the story later on; films like Shaun of the Dead and Ferris Bueller's Day Off are notable examples. This film employed this technique quite a few times: Jerska's birthday gift to Dreyman is sheet music for a work called Sonata for a Good Man, which later becomes the name of the novel Dreyman writes. The young officer who tells a joke about Honecker right in front of Grubitz re-appears later in the film with Wiesler in the steam-press shop after being demoted - he is the one who informs him that the Wall had come down. The film is filled with thoughtful choices like these, and it makes for a fulfilling and engaging watch when the audience is able to make these subtle connections.
ReplyDeleteI felt the same! The names were so confusing that it made the general politics of the film really hard to follow. I didn't know who was who, especially the man who was taking advantage of Christa. However, I think it may just be because we don't understand German, and following almost solely with subtitles may be a little difficult. I think the film technique you mention is really interesting, and can really add so much more to a movie. I also noticed the book title later on being named after the sonata Jerska had given Dreyman.
DeleteI really enjoyed the emotional appeal in this film. I feel like the title fits with the message of the movie. Wiesler starts his mission with determination to be successful in catching the supposed criminal. However, as his time goes on consistently overhearing Dreyman and Christa’s conversations, he develops an attachment to them and their relationship. Wiesler becomes conflicted between what is right by the state and what is right by him. He eventually realizes he doesn’t want them to get caught, because Dreyman shows to be a moral man. My favorite scene is in the end, where after several years later, Dreyman finally finds out about Wiesler peering into his life, but never turning him in. He writes a book about him, dedicating it to Wiesler who later sees it. It’s interesting how these two who have never met face to face, yet share such a life-altering connection. That’s where I think the title of the movie connects so well, where Wiesler has such a strong hold on the lives of others, he questions what should he do with that power.
ReplyDeleteI think that the film has a remarkable coda, set in 1992 after the Berlin Wall has fallen and the Stasi files were opened to the public. One of the scenes that stood out to me was when Dreyman visits the former Stasi headquarters. Reading them provides him with something like the walk down a nightmarish memory lane. It reminded me of a book called The File: A Personal History, that British historian and student of Eastern European affairs Timothy Garton Ash, which depicted his reaction that resulted from examining the dossier that the Stasi had opened on him in 1981 when he was doing research in Berlin for a book on the Third Reich.
ReplyDeleteDreyman finds some illuminating surprises in his files. He also meets the lecherous minister, who, unsurprisingly, performed a Vicar of Bray act and recreated himself in a new Germany as many Nazi sympathisers had done 50 years before.
I noticed a few connections to Hamlet in this film. The first was the theme of morality in choices. In Hamlet, Hamlet had to decide whether or not he should exact revenge on his Uncle, but before he could make this decision he needed to know all the details regarding the situation. Hamlet held the play to gain this information from the King's reaction. Similarly, in "The Lives of Others" Wiesler has to decide where his allegiances lies, either with Dreyman and Christa-maria with their honest lives, or with the DDR and his career as a top Stasi officer. In addition, he wanted to know everything about the situation before he made his decision. Throughout his spying and meeting the little boy in the elevator, he realizes that, "Stasi agents are bad men who put people in prison" (Boy in elevator). In both cases, the main character chose the widely accepted good-side, and "good" characters had to die unjustly along the way to come to this endpoint (Christa-Maria and Ophelia).
ReplyDelete4. O.Scott, A New York Times writer commented, in his review of the film that, "'The suspense comes not only from the structure and pacing of the scenes, but also, more deeply, from the sense that even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will. You never know, from one moment to the next, what course any of the characters will chose.'" Respond to his critique.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a brilliant point. Even with all the tight controls of this oppressive society, the characters still had free will-- maybe not in the traditional sense, but in a different way. For example, Sieland had the choice to save herself instead of the man she loved, and she chose herself. Wiesler had the choice to protect himself-- everything in the normal life he knew as an official working for the oppressive government-- or protect the lives of innocent people he was so entranced by. He decided to the noble thing. It speaks to the idea that in any situation at any time, we as humans have a choice. There’s no “I didn’t have a choice”-- that’s just an excuse people make. Everyone always has choices to choose from, though they might not be favorable.
I liked the film because it really gave us an insight into human nature. I think the Wiesler was a great example of this because he is always changing. In the film he was made into a bad guy but throughout the story his opinions of the state and his allegiance changed. I think this relates to human nature as we are changing creatures. This idea of change also relates to Hamlet as him and his sanity are always changing throughout the play (dependent on what kinda shiitake is going on).
ReplyDeleteI agree with how you think it relates to Hamlet because in both the film and the poem, both main characters go through a lot of emotional turmoil and self doubt throughout. They go on a long journey to try to find their self identity, which again relates to many humans in the world today.
DeleteI didn't get to finish the film because I was absent on Friday, but from what I saw I really enjoyed the plot of the film. I feel like it really expressed human nature and captured the feelings of that era extremely well. One large aspect of the film that I found particularly shocking was that there was actually a class based on how to investigate people. It showed me the values of Berlin at the time and how it in a way "brainwashed" its young citizens from an early age to believe that torturing and investigating was perfectly normal.
ReplyDeleteThough I enjoyed the film, I really think it could have gone without all of the graphic and uncomfortable sex scenes. They were not necessary or important to the plot and, in my opinion, cheapened the movie.I would have focused on the more interesting parts of the story.
ReplyDeleteThe main connection I saw between "The Lives of Others" and "Hamlet" was the complications and lack of communication between the characters. There was a lot of lie and deceit in order to protect others in the film but it resulted in many hardships and even deaths in order to escape the guilt. The moment when the woman ran in front of the car, I was reminded of when Ophelia jumped into the lake. She was also trying to escape her reality that became over-complicated through the lack of truth.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the film because it was full of dynamic characters that are not easily explainable. Weisler evolves from an unsympathetic and ruthless Stasi officer, to a man who decides love and life are more important than superimposed political ideologies. A lot of people thought the scene with the prostitute was unnecessary, but it shows the dynamic of Weisler's thought processes, similar to Christa-maria's affair, and Dreyman's obsession with revealing the truth to the west.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that the film is filled with dynamic characters which is part of what makes this film so great. From Wiesler, who turns from uncaring to thoughtful, to Sieland, whose loyalty to Dreyman fades and leads to her demise through guilt. Wiesler was the one who got the information out of Sieland and is also the one who moved the typewriter. Sieland's death had an enormous mental impact on Wiesler, which can be seen in the film. The character development was absolutely spot on in this film.
DeleteO. Scott's critique is ironic yet representative of the film. Even though the GDR's society was designed to be a oppressive society, the burden of free will is present because of the individuals that comprise the society. It is heartbreaking to see Wiesler have to battle between his job and emotional attachment to the artistic couple Christa-Maria Sieland and Georg Dreyman. Throughout the movie, the audience is left thinking “what is Wiesler going to do?” At certain moments, Wiesler chooses to stay true to the future of his “career”, but ultimately he tries to save the artistic couple. The free will of other characters are observed as well and provide shocking twists in the movie plot. For example, Christa decides to become an informant and provide crucial information on her husband Dreyman and the whereabouts of the typewriter. The questionable choices of all the characters in the movie illustrate that even in an oppressive society, the true nature of humans is to make individual choices.
ReplyDeleteWhile there were many twists and turns in the movie that helped to develop the plot, the one event that resonated the most with me and marked an important turning point in the plot was when Wiesler was coming home from a long day of a surveillance and he meets the little kid in the elevator in his apartment building. We had already seen at this point that there may be another side to the originally cold, calculating, hard-line Stasi captain we had first met, but his change wasn't concrete. However, when the kid accidentally reveals to Wiesler that his dad has been talking poorly of the Stasi, he decides to have some mercy on the father, cutting himself short from asking the kid what his dad's name was so he could throw him in jail. I think this scene was very moving as it shows Wiesler turning a new leaf and realizing that what he has been doing is wrong, which in turn puts him on the path that will allow Dreyman to publish his work.
ReplyDelete1. While I normally don't watch German films about the stringent rule of the Stasi, I must say The Lives of Others was a very enjoyable movie. There were no dramatic visuals, fast-paced action scenes, or any of the Hollywood effects we're used to. The quiet yet powerful thoughts that the movie brings about is enough to captivate anyone. Moreover, the character development of Wiesler is truly spectacular. He's a reclusive man, doing nothing but listening in on Dreyman's activities. He shifts from a loyal Stasi dedicated to finding dirt on Dreyman to a helpful and understanding *friend* of Dreyman's. His transformation is very subtle and we can tell the conflicts he has in his head. The Lives of Others offers a very interesting perspective that is often overlooked during the study of Stasi-ruled Germany.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agreed - for such an old movie, I had low expectations that were blown out the water with the good dialogue, tension, plot and fantastic character development. Wiesler was in particular a very fascinating character, and I think the actor portrayed his dilemas very well.
DeleteI thought it was interesting to see just oppressive the government was, and how they actually spied on people. Near the end you see Dreyman pulling out all the wires from around his house. Seeing his emotional reaction was definitely an interesting part of the movie because it perfectly showed just how badly it can affect someone. Another part that I found interesting was when Wiesler bought Dreyman's book. This was interesting because the book was dedicated to Wiesler and the entire scene showed how the job changed Wiesler.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was similar to Hamlet because there was a lot of disconnection between the characters. In “Hamlet,” Hamlet gets spied on by Claudius and Polonius and in “The Lives of Others” Wiesler spies on Georg and Christa-Maria. There was a lot of lying going on and people were not seen as equals because there was always somebody of a higher rank than others. When Christa-Maria ran in front of the car it was suicide from guilt, which is related to “Hamlet” because Hamlet also wanted to commit suicide, but because of sorrow instead of guilt. Everyone was trying to escape something negative in their lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concept that everyone wanted to escape the negativity in their lives. I definitely see the correlation between Hamlet's sorrow and Christa-Maria's guilt. You described the relationship between the two stories well, because there was spying and lying in both stories.
DeleteI like an action-packed, modern film as much as the next person.
ReplyDelete"An old film entirely in German, with no special visual effects", however, was not something I expected to like as much as I did.
At first, I thought I had figured out the plot - Dreyman would eventually slip up, get caught, escape somehow from some unforeseen circumstances. I never expected Wiesler to be anything but the maniacal, cold villain - and that made his thawing all that much more of a jolt. Nearing the end, he sacrificed his job and everything he had believed in, to do the "right thing" and prevent an innocent man from going to jail. This kind of 3-dimensional character development is rarely even seen in much more recent movies, and impressed me the most.
The only real thing that I could pick up in relation to the book Hamlet was the aspect of spying the Government uses as a tool. In Hamlet, spying is used in order to discover different things about the individuals that they were unwilling to share in the first place. In the movie, it is used for the same reason, painting the Government out to be this overbearing aspect of the individual's lives that takes away their freedom in one way or another. Not being able to have the luxury of privacy takes a toll on both the characters in Hamlet and in the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1./3. ) If I could change one thing, I would want the two men to meet at the end of the movie. I think that it was an interesting ending for them to be able to recognise each other silently but it seemed somewhat lacking to me as a viewer. At first, I did not think "The Lives of Others" was a suitable title but as I began to think more deeply about the movie, I understood the depth of Wiesler's character. He was brought up and educated to have complete faith in the GDR government, its political ideals and the way it dealt with people who did not comply. However, as Wiesler watches Dreyman he learns about how dull his life is in comparison. I believe that he envies Dreyman and wishes that he too can have the same kind of "exciting" life, evident when he hires a prostitute. Eventually, Wiesler realizes that Dreyman's life is better simply because he is free, he thinks freely and is not dedicating all of his work and effort to pleasing higher ups due to fear of being demoted like Wiesler has. It was very interesting to watch the development of a character who has full trust in the communist regime make a 180 to support a writer fighting to expose the horrible acts of the government and for freedom and sacrifice himself in the process.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was especially interesting to me because we got to see a lot of character development throughout the film. At first Wiesler is portrayed as an emotionless officer of the Stasi, as the opening scene is of him mercilessly interrogating a man and teaching his students his techniques. However, as he continues to monitor Dreyman, he begins to question his actions, and began to cover up for the writer, even going so far as to remove the typewriter from its hiding spot. Sieland, the actress, becomes overwhelmed by her insecurities as the film goes on, and it eventually lead to her betraying Dreyman to the Stasi. The thing that interested me the most is that although we expected Wiesler to be an informant and Sieland a conspirator, it turned out to be the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe film had a pretty slow start at first. I thought it was going to be a pretty boring film considering there isn't any climactic moments and is entirely in German. Though I was surprised at how intrigued I was towards the end of the film. All the mystery, and me being suspicious of certain characters, implemented in the film kept me on the edge of my seat. I also like the overall message the film gave. It's that it's never wrong to do the right thing, regardless if there will be consequences following your actions. If you know you're doing the right thing for a good cause, then that's all that really matters isn't it?
ReplyDelete2. Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, how does this film relate to Hamlet?
ReplyDeleteThe Stasi surveillance in the film, “The Lives of Others”, relates to Claudius and Polonius’ spying in Hamlet. Both acts of surveillance are widely seen as unethical. In both cases, authority figures are taking advantage of their power, and are driving their subjects against them.
I think the film and the novel also share the theme of Appearance vs. Reality. In the beginning of “The Lives of Others,” Wiesler seems like the clear villain of the story; he is harsh, withdrawn, and ominous. As the story progresses however, we learn that Wiesler is loving and grows to care for his targets when he takes the typewriter from under the floor-board. He sacrifices not only his career, but his reputation to help Georg escape harsh punishment for writing the article. In Hamlet, Hamlet has a tough and arrogant exterior, but is actually loving and sensitive on the inside. While Claudius appears noble and just to the people, he is actually greedy, selfish, and violent.
1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteI found it fascinating to see the changes that Wiesler underwent as the film progressed and how he gradually came to doubt the system that he had previously had a lot of faith in. When he listens and observes the lives of Christa and Georg, his mindset concerning the communist regime starts to adjust and he begins to place more emphasis on his own moral compass and less trust in his superiors. At the start of the film, I didn’t like Wiesler at all, but as the story went on, I started to like his character more and more as some of the nuances were revealed. The scene with the boy is sort of pivotal to his character change. When the boy said that the Stasi are all bad men, you can tell that that really hurt Wiesler and I feel like he starts to wonder if what he’s doing is worth it if it harms other people so much. Also, his initial instinct is to ask for the name of the father to punish him, but he decides not to, which I was so glad about. Then he goes on to talk to Christa to try to lift her spirits, to leave information out of his reports, and to straight up lie to protect Christa and Georg. And his final act was to do what he considered morally right (aka taking the typewriter to protect them), even though it ended his career. The ending was really bittersweet for me. I initially thought that Georg was going to tell the taxi driver to wait so that he could go back and tell Wiesler in person, but I kind of like how it was done in the movie, because Georg Dreyman was able to write again, and he was able to thank Wiesler for protecting him; it was very poetic.
4. O.Scott, A New York Times writer commented...
ReplyDeleteI felt exactly the same way. I think the film was a textbook example of terrific character development, because nothing ever felt cliché or completely expected. The pacing of Wiesler's character development throughout the film was very strong because it gave me enough time to react and understand his different motives, and understand his feelings as a fellow human being. A lot of films have brash, undeveloped characters that end up feeling hollow and cold. Despite his explicit characterization as an unfeeling government official, we still end up feeling sorry for his situation later in the film, which mirrors Hamlet in a couple ways.
And the film is very thought-provoking. Most of us take free-will for granted, since the government isn't forcing us to do anything. But somehow, when put in this environment, we're surprised when Wiesler uses his free will. However, perhaps we are only surprised because he is going against his job, which is not necessarily a true reflection of free will.