Friday, March 9, 2018
The Lives of Others
Pick one of the following prompts and the respond to another person's post:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The film relates to Hamlet specifically in aspects regarding trust. In both, characters are secretive because they don't know who they can trust. There is also a lot of spying and betrayal in both Hamlet and the film.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a lot of spying and mistrust in Hamlet similarly to the movie.
DeleteI also agree that spying and betryal were in the Hamlet. But, I think main character's girlfriend's death is also similar.
DeleteThis movie relates to Hamlet in many ways. In Hamlet, Polonius spied on his son and Claudius spied on his son. They were spied on with people they care about (their friends) and everything they've done was reported back to either Polonius or Claudius. I don't think Polonius was doing anything for political reasons, but Claudius was as he didn't want Hamlet to threaten his status. Claudius didn't have moral complications because he didn't care about Hamlet that much. In this movie, people are watching this writer for political reasons and using people he cares about which is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree, different characters participated in different levels of spying and the reasons behind them varied.
DeleteGood comparison, but Polonius was also doing it for political reasons because he wanted to keep the throne and knowledge of it away from Hamlet.
DeleteI agree that there was spying on the movie, but they intentions of spying for Hamlet and this movie were different. Claudius wanted to keep his thrown but Weisler was doing his job.
DeleteThe film was very well made and had the power to make me feel uncomfortable when certain things were happening. The artist goes through the most tragedy in my opinion but all of this is necessary in order for him to have material to write about. After the wall comes down, he is bored as an artist as well as depressed because of ex lovers death. However, I think it was quite crucial that he figured out she had betrayed in him in order to fuel his writing through emotion.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, in my opinion it was important because he wouldn't write as passionately without some sort of motivation.
DeleteAgreed, and I think that the idea that Dreyman's ex lover betrayed him to motivate him to write is very interesting. At first I cannot really understand how so, but as I look back to the movie I get what it means.
DeleteThe film is similar to Hamlet in several ways, namely the fact that all the characters are rather reserved and hiding in the shadows out of a fear for who they can put their faith in. In addition to all the action present in both films, there was a hint of romance with separate unique storylines in each film.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I like how both stories had interesting subplots along with an overarching storyline.
DeleteThis film is similar to Hamlet mostly in that the protagonists are working in secret against their government. In this film, Georg Dreyman publishes a journal article against the government while Gerd Wiesler records false accounts of Dreyman's activities to help Dreyman with his work. In Hamlet, Hamlet gathers evidence about Claudius's guilt and plots ways to kill him and essentially topple the leadership of the kingdom. The intentions of both stories' protagonists are discovered by their enemies, but the protagonists ultimately prevail.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think about it that way. Your comparison is very interesting.
DeleteSimilarly, Laertes can be compared to Dreyman's team leader. They do not appear until later in the story, and both essentially already know of the main protagonists' "wrongdoings," and punishing them for doing so.
Deleteif i could change the film in any way, i would have it so that the main actor in the story dies and the girl lives. i would do this so the girl would have to live with the guilt that because she snitched on her "boyfriend" that the cops killed him and she was to blame. then later so insane and have a plot twist be that all along it was actually her who was writing. but we would never show who was actually writing until the very end were shes typing something about him on the type writer saying shes going to die and it was her all along
ReplyDeleteI agree, that would have been a lot more interesting.
DeleteI don't usually enjoy historical films, but this particular one is quite astonishing. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time, waiting for what would happen next. I think Weisler really grew a lot throughout this movie. He started out as someone who always followed the rules and never deviated from the system. But slowly, as he learns about the lives of Dreyman, he is more forgiving nd understanding.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how the film shows the sympathetic side of human nature. How, even ruled by an oppressive government, people still care and help each other out. Wiesler becoming more forgiving and understanding really highlights this. :)
DeleteI think that's a really common conflict/plot point in a lot of movies, where the "bad guy" or the person who's supposed to be enforcing oppressive policies starts to develop a personal attachment to those he is oppressing. It's usually a very effective technique because then we don't hate the antagonists as much.
DeleteI agree, I find it difficult to watch movies like this too, but this movie really caught my attention the whole way through.
DeleteIt was impressive how the movie set up the settings and the character's personalities. The characters completely showed their personalities and attracted audiences well too.
DeleteThe characters in the movie felt real, you could sense Wiesler's empathy and curiosity towards Dreyman. From taking Dreyman's book to even hiring a prostitute to live the life of Dreyman, Wiesler slowly became more and more sympathetic towards Dreyman and how is treated by the government. Wiesler was a strict government official who was very loyal to the state. However, as the movie progressed, Wiesler slowly started helping Dreyman: changing his report and eventually hiding his typewriter.
ReplyDeletei agree the characters felt real and wiesler helping dreyman really changed how the audience viewed him
DeleteI definitely agree that the characters in the film were very impact for their feelings can be felt by the viewers. Watching the main character change filled the film with suspense.
DeleteI agree that the characters in the movie felt real. Their senses of empathy allowed me to connect to the movie and made Wiesler very likeable as he was able to grow over time.
Delete#4: "'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'" (O. Scott, NYT).
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting way of interpreting the East German society at the time, and I think its entirely accurate. The society is oppressive and strict about what citizens are allowed to do, but not about what they are able to do. As a result, artists like Dreyman and Sieland were surveillanced the way they were because they had "burden" of free will to be artists despite the hostile political climate. In a way, it was good for them to be able to express themselves (ie. Dreyman publishing the article in the west) but it also put their freedom at risk. And because they were watched so closely, any single decision they made could effectively change the course of their lives.
I would change the ending of the film because it felt very depressing. I didn't feel a sense of completion and I feel like it would have been better to add something. Although Dreyman indirectly communicated with the person who was spying on him, I would have liked to see him actually approach him when he saw him on the street instead of hesitating.
ReplyDeleteI thought that it would have been nice to see Dreyman interact with the spy too!
DeleteThe film was definitely filled with surprises at every corner. The most impactful aspect of the film was the death of Christa. Originally, I thought the message of the film was that even bad people can change. Seeing the main character go from a brutal interrogator to a supporter of Dreyman supported this message. But what really caught me off guard was the death of Christa. Everything was going well, well except for the fact that the government was suspicious of Dreyman, and the main character even went out of his way to remove the evidence. But the main character’s hard work and sacrifice for a good cause led to some tragic events. The death of Christa was one such event. This goes to show that even though one has good intentions, you can never really be sure that nothing bad happens. Although the movie ended up with a somewhat happy ending, the death of Christa was the most impactful scene in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the filming of that death scene was executed very well with the different shots and ensuing emotion/music. I did not like how Grubitz just came walking out with his professional side, but it makes sense that his figure would not really care about all these suicide. In fact, his demeanor made that scene even more realistic/historically accurate and emotionally tragic. I think sudden suicide of Christa did a good job of reflecting the decisions that these people had to make under such emotional stress, that in a moment, one could just accept death like that.
DeleteI thought that this film was an accurate representation of what was happening in Germany, from what I have learned.In multiple scenes, characters are faced with the thought of following the rules of the GDR or choosing to do what they think is right. One way I think that the ending could be changed would be by having reymand and the spy meet. I think that it would strengthen the storyline and add a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree with you. I liked their depiction of GDR as well!
DeleteI agree! I think the moral conflict really added to the depth of the movie and the skill with which the actors were acting.
Delete#1: Personally, the one thing that struck out to me was the character development of Wiesler ("Lazlo" Stasi Spy). It was astonishing to see him from being a cold-hearted man in the beginning to becoming a warm-blooded man in the end. Despite his stern background, it was surprising to see bits of his heart warm up to the characters, Georg Dreyman and Christa Maria. Because of his reaction, it gives hope in humanity and further strengthens that everyone is human--and has some sort of warm feelings...which is nice to recall at times when the world is in chaos.
ReplyDeleteI agree; it shows selflessness how in the end an initially "cold-hearted man" working for the GDR would ed up sacrificing his standard of living for that of a "traitor" of the GDR
DeleteI enjoyed the fall after the climax when Dreyman discovered the mics that were hidden in his house from over two years ago and when he read the reports on his actions. It portrays how naive people are not by choice but simply because no one else informed them. He was under surveillance, and still unaware to that fact even after the case was closed. Both this film and Hamlet highlight the major misunderstandings in politics and relationships that are caused by both major and minor actions of people involved. Whether it's not reporting the entire truth of what happened or battling your own thoughts, the truth rarely is exposed to the fullest. I would make the film shorter mainly because I think the plot was dragged on after a while. There were moments that weren't necessary to the story line and didn't contribute as much purpose wise. Some choices are predictable, but what captures the audience is giving them what they don't expect. There were parts of the film I didn't expect and others that I did. It created a solid balance which kept the film engaging, although there were constant pauses that were held out a little too long.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the whole operation was a waste of time because turns out he was an innocent man after all, publishing a book. And that the movie is representing Germany with what was going on back then in the 1900’s. If someone was publishing secrets of the government, they would be hunted down. But isn’t that everywhere?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely touched by the ending, how both Dreyman and Wieser get the closure they were looking for when Dreyman publishes his book. It's good that Wieser knows that his efforts weren't in vain, that it truly helped someone.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the ending was amazing because Dreyman was thankful but he still didn't want to go and talk to Weisler. He, instead, wrote a book about him to thank him for keeping the secret.
DeleteI agree, the ending really gave closure to the characters and gave faith to the new society. It allows for hope that good deeds and sticking to your morals can have positive effects on society and individuals.
DeleteI really loved the ending especially the dedication, it was a good closure.
Delete4. I would completely agree with O.Scott. We never expected what was coming next especially the death of Christa Maria. She killed herself because of her guilt but we couldn't tell this until she said it. The scene where Georg Dreyman finds out about the surveillance we can see his disappointment towards the society and this drives him to look for the person who was spying on him. Also, Weisler could have easily turned Dreyman over but he decided to hide the information because to a great extent he knew things that were happening were wrong. Due to this he even lost his career. The suspense built throughout the film resulted in a great climax and nicely portrayed the consequences of an oppressive society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that because he regrets of what he did to the poor couple, spying on them for months and realizing they were both innocent.
Deletethe film relates to Hamlet in that Dreyman is unsure of who to trust. He feels as Hamlet did that all around him are complicit of the state of Germany and the controlling state it has come to, the same way Hamlet felt about the royal staff and nobles around him being complicit in his fathers murdder
ReplyDeleteThis film is similar to Hamlet in that the Georg Dreyman constantly felt repressed in his expression by the government, who constantly tracked him. Hamlet also resented the king for sending spies to him, and he also conspired with close friends in order to create some change. We can see that Georg was obviously frustrated with his gloomy life and tried to seek escape through his relationship with Christa, whereas Hamlet mainly used his soliloquies to vent and also retreated to Ophelia. Given that, I think that Georg, as an adult and accomplished artist, was able to express himself more, but that come with more risks than Hamlet. On the other hand, Claudius just wanted to directly kill Hamlet towards the end; the point of Claudius' spying was not to uncover illegal actions, rather to figure out the character of Hamlet, which ended up lead him to attempting murder. The Lives of Others definitely focused more on Wiesler and his spying, rather than the character of Georg, but nevertheless, we can still see how he relates to that of the main character of Hamlet.
ReplyDeleteInitially GHW seemed like the antagonist of the film, but after convincing Christa-Maria Sieland of her artistic merit, he slowly became the second protagonist. In the end, I was surprised that he chose to sacrifice his career to save Dreyman's out of purely good will. What I didn't understand, however, was why GHW decided to go out his way to write both the real and fake scripts. Also, the novel dedicated to GHW in the end presumably documented the events of this film; even if the case had long been closed, would this not bring unnecessary attention from the GDR?
ReplyDeleteFor prompt number four, I do agree with O.Scott's comment that the suspense also comes from the sense that even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will. At first, Wiesler is a dedicated communist who is extremely loyal to the communist regime of GDR, but as he monitors the life of Dreyman, his attitude begins to change dramatically, and eventually becomes the person who protected Dreyman from the "Operation Lazlo" designed to get the writer. Also, when Dreyman plays Sonata for a Good Man, he talks about a quote by Lenin that says if Lenin continues to listen to music by Beethoven, the father of communist revolution is not able to finish his revolution. The quote of Lenin points out the fundamental human pursue for free thought and human emotion, as even the founder of the communist system has that, which explains the uncertainty in character development.
ReplyDeleteThe opening scene involving wiring Dreyman's apartment was really interesting to me. It displayed the level of ease required to spy on people, and still leave the inhabitant completely unaware until they have been confronted. This could be seen as Dreyman's friend rehearsed his speech in the West in his apartment, and was arrested as a result. Afterwards, as he had learned his lesson, he became very "musical." It is not clear as to why he didn't bother to look for the wiring like Dreyman. In an oppressive society, it still requires everyday citizens to make the society oppressive, and thus those are the people who have the ability to change the course of an event.
ReplyDeleteI agree how the wiring part was interesting and now far they were willing to go to spy on a playwriter. I also agree on how society is oppressive and requires citizens to make it even more oppressive.
Delete1) Overall I believe the film was very well made for it showed the possible real-world accurate repercussions of the communist regime in East Germany. Despite the heavy hitting subject matter of the film it was conveyed via a story that kept people constantly on the edge of their seats. The extensive history wasn't explained at the audience but rather subtly shown in the ongoings of the movie. I think this subtlety coupled with the characters' amazing acting and depth of emotion was what made it such a good film. It was also very explicit in nature, yet that added to the realism the audience felt. Also, the end of the film definitely did justice to portraying the significance of the fall of the Berlin wall.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the film was well made due to its accuracy of time and event. The film doesn't really describe the natural history, but it illustrates how people in the film behave during the time of war. I also agree that the people worked very hard to make this a very interesting movie. The actions do show what it is like to live during the time of war. Also, the ending did show the meaning of justice.
DeleteYes I definitely agree with the fact that the film accurately represented how life was back in East Germany. There were real consequences for each choice that each character made.
DeleteI agree that the movie portrayed the history and the daily life of people living in East Germany in a subtle, yet impactful manner. I also agree that the movie was very real and deep with emotion.
DeleteIn response to prompt 1, I found it surprising how easy it was to bug someone's house, and how society suppresses people like this to the point where people were not allowed to publish books on what they thought. I also found it surprising how Weisler began helping Dreyman because as the story dragged on, he knew that what was happening was wrong, and he was conflicted between his duty and his morals. the higher ranked people threatened him with his job, but he still stood by what he thought was right.
ReplyDeleteYes, I totally agree it was a surprisingly easy to bug Dreyman's home. I really appreciated that plot twist in the film, how Weisler started helping Dreyman.
DeleteI also found it shocking in the beginning scene that bugging someone's house was so simple. I also agree that the concept of freedom of expression and choice was well illustrated in the film.
DeleteOne factor that was very consistent with Hamlet was the concept of spying. In both the film and play, character consistently engaged in spying. Mostly, the reason is that characters do not trust one another. Hamlet felt he had no one to really trust as he had been betrayed by his mother and Claudius, so he decided he needed to spy on them to further delve into the truth.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely the act of spying plays a big role in both films, making Hamlet wary of those around him and begging questions of loyalty in L.O.Others.
DeleteYes there was spying in both Hamlet and The Lives of Others, but it was not particularly the same. Claudius was using spying as the antagonist, while Wiesler was the spy, helping people who needed it, as the protagonist. The spying in TLOO was way more advanced and helpful, while it did not do much in Hamlet.
DeleteSpying was definitely one of the most apparent similarities between both book and movie.
DeleteI agree that spying is common in the film and the book, and it shows how little trusts the characters have in each other.
DeletePrompt 4 - Similar to what we read in Man's Search for Meaning, the idea that even in an oppressive society one has the freedom to choose how they respond is an important aspect of this film. The characters have to not only make difficult choices but must live with their decision for the rest of their lives. I think this internal strife makes the characters more relatable, and agree with the critique that most of the suspense is derived from how the characters react to the situation at hand.
ReplyDeleteI think it's powerful in the film how the law clearly restricts press and freedom of speech, yet many writers/artists/individuals voluntarily break the law, because they weigh personal freedoms above it. This shows how important the 1st amendment is, because we can appreciate the freedom to write, say, and think clearly. It also shows how an oppressive society does not function well if the citizens themselves do not want to be oppressed.
DeleteWiesler is the main character, yet there was not much insight about why he decides to make the decisions he did. Sure it may be out of compassion, but in the stasi it was his duty to spy on them and give all the information to his boss. He was not portrayed as a man to be distrusted among his people, so what caused this change of heart?
ReplyDeleteThat's really interesting, I never thought about what really pressed on Wrestler's heart to make his certain decisions. It genuinely did have to do with his heart and how his feelings and even personal connections with the others pursued that change of heart. There was somewhat of a personal relationship he had with them which probably lead him to a deeper compassion outside his comfort level with his stuff.
Delete3. A few things I would change about the film. A lot of the sex scenes were not relevant to show. Though lust was the driving force of the antagonist (bad fat German minister), they could have taken out a lot of the nudity to make it a PG-13 movie instead of rated R. Also they could have antagonized the bad fat German minister more to make the viewers hate him even more. Also, I would wish the movie was in english haha. I understand that the setting took place in Germany, but I wish it were in English so I could understand the plot better. I couldn't remember their names except Christa, because they were all German HAHA!
ReplyDeleteI agree. They emphasized certain scenes over others that, if they did the opposite, the total effect of the film would have been much stronger. :)
DeleteOverall I really liked how they developed Wiesler's sympathy. When Christa kills herself, Grubitz tells Dreyman that the interrogation is over as an obligation, then promptly leaves. This is in contrast to Wiesler, who stays around to watch Dreyman hold Christa, and is very visably shaken up by what's in front of him. I enjoy watching characters realize what they've been doing is wrong and how they come to fix it, so it was nice that they had Wiesler use whatever authority he had to help however he could. I also liked how they shot the ending; I think they really captured the essence of closure very well. Closure is something easy to convey in dialogue, but it's difficult to get the same sense from an atmosphere they way they did.
ReplyDeleteI liked this aspect of the movie as well. Wiesler was a super cool character because of the way he was initially portrayed as a cold blooded agent and then had his turning point when he had the conversation with Christa and started deliberately being sloppy with his work.
DeleteI like this part of the movie as well. The actors did a good job at conveying this.
Delete#1. I found it interesting that the people in the apartment are being under strict command of the government. It's also interesting in the beginning that the professor treats students like prisoners. I was shocked to see the woman committing suicide by letting the truck hit her to death. Despite of the different scenes, the whole movie kind of relates to the time of war and the beginning makes it seem like the holocaust, where prisoners are under stricted rules, causing themselves to be tortured, just like how the people in the rooms are treated. Overall, I think the film was very interesting in terms of action and political events.
ReplyDeleteI would probably change the ending of the film and add HGW and Dreyman meeting up and discussing the period with the spying and what went wrong. Why did the attempt to check whether the apartment was bugged fail? What happened to the typewriter and my manuscripts? The ending as of right now is great and offers closure and is 100 percent way better than what I have in mind, but I would just prefer if HGW and dreyman talked and had a conversation for some extra closure and emotion
ReplyDeleteI agree,having them meet at the end would have had a better feel as an ending
DeleteI agree about how both Dreyman and Weisler should have met in the end. There were a lot of questions Dreyman probably had that he wanted to ask Weisler about.
Delete3. The film was extremely well done from the setting to the acting and everything in between. I just wish Christa's character could have been more empowered. She was only female lead and still did not have the proper time or focus to explain her situation. I think it could have added more to the story and understanding of the oppression- especially for women- if she had this chance. I believe many women, to some exact, often find themselves in a position similar to hers, and I wish that could have been portrayed more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement made by O.Scott from the New York Times. People who are oppressed often are forced into partaking in things that they have no choice in not doing. An example was seen in the movie when Christiana Maria betrayed her man revealing where the typewriter was hidden inside his house. With no free will, she was ultimately forced to reveal his secret as not doing so would have resulted in serious repercussions for her own self.
ReplyDeleteEspecially considering the growth in her character that we'd expect her to maintain after the agent talked about "her audience." It shows how impactful free will is to our lives.
DeleteI was skeptical about this film at the beginning but I grew to really like it. One thing I would change about the movie would be Christa ratting out on Dreyman. I would want her to stand strong and not rat him out. I would rather have the other man that was listening to their convos tell on Dreyman. I feel that if Christa had a more loyalty and integrity her death would be more heart felt.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Christa ratting out on Dreyman expresses how oppressive the society is, that you need jurisdiction from the Communist party in order live your life. Had Christa not betrayed Dreyman, she would never be able to act again. Everyone has different priorities and for Christa, her acting career came before Dreyman, and I think that's perfectly acceptable. I sympathize with her struggle to keep one without losing the other throughout this movie, as she passionately loves her career and Dreyman both.
DeleteI actually agree. I think they didn't really do much justice to Christa's role in the whole thing and if they made her more loyal there would have been a greater impact on the audience.
DeleteI felt that idea of free will even in the confines of an oppressive society is clearly illustrated through Wiesler's change of heart. I connected this idea of liberty in the choices we make to Sartre's ideas--a philosopher I studied. Sartre believed in human's ability to make choices even in the worst situations. Weisler was initially a dedicated communist loyal to his superiors, however, as he continued to monitor Dreyman while conducting operation "Lazlo" he had a change of heart and decided to follow his own moral compass despite having to defy his authorities. I felt O. Scott's interpretation of the film was correct in this aspect.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by Wiesler's actions that drastically changed from the beginning of the movie to the end. In the beginning, he was fully devoted to the regime and was a very brutal interrogator. He was very against the lives of the artists and writers and he was one of the first to suspect Georg Dreyman. Yet, by watching the way that they live their lives freely, he completely changed. I was really surprised that, by the end of the movie, he stole the typewriter to save Dreyman and committed a crime which basically ended his career. He was able to sacrifice so much so that the artists could leave freely. I was happy that in the end of the movie, Dreyman thanked Wiesler, even if it wasn't directly.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It is interesting to see the character development of Wiesler, and I liked how he ended up picking his morals over supporting the GDR.
DeleteThis film had some great characters along with a good topic. Many people have no idea what it would have been like to be apart of east Germany during this time and the film does a good job showing many aspects of the East Germany life. They show what it is like to be part of the state security what it's like to be a person under surveillance. The film really shows the viewer why there was so many "self-murders". It takes you to a place that not very many people think about. The film also makes very strong and compelling characters with great development. Wiesler development from a cold hearted surveillance man to someone who is putting everything on the line to help someone he doesn't really know is astonishing.
ReplyDeleteI agree! I think this movie gave really good perspective on the rules that the State Security had laid out for Germans to abide by if they didn't want their lives ruined, essentially. Although it was easy to live by the rules and everyone's lives were basically laid out for them, characters like Wiesler traveled into dangerous territory such as free will and acted in ways that fit their own beliefs rather than the one deemed appropriate by society.
Delete4. It is very clear that in the film, the State Security, gives people very strict rules on how they are supposed to behave. Any kind of rebellious actions are not tolerated and people who are suspected are watched 24 hours a day. People are interrogated for hours until they confess. They do not have the same freedom that we have today in the United States. Although we have this very oppressive government, it is the few choices that the characters have that cause the most suspense. For them, their free will consists of the choice of being a traitor or being punished. Weisler has the choice of performing his job correctly and getting promoted or helping the artist escape punishment. Throughout many scenes in the movie we, as an audience, don't know what choice he is going to make. It isn't a choice that is obvious or easy. It is the same with Maria, who has the choice to betray her boyfriend or be imprisoned. The audience has no idea if she is the character who will sacrifice herself or the character who will choose to be selfish. This unknown factor makes the movie very gripping and suspenseful. It is their "free will" to make the choice whether to betray or sacrifice. They may not have other options but it is still their choice and that choice will weigh on them for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say about "free will" and especially how their choices can weigh on them for the rest of their lives. We are reminded of that in the heartwarming ending of the film, when Dreyman writes and dedicates his book "Sonata for a Good Man" to Weisler. Weisler who knew the risks, lost his job, and knew he may never received thanks, had confirmation that he had had a positive impact on Dreyman who had found out and was deeply thankful. It's as if a great weight on Weisler had been lifted and as smiles he says, "It's for me." when buying the book.
Delete1. I liked how in movie you can see a clear character development of Captain Wiesler. There are many moments in the movie where Wiesler could have exposed the plots of Dreyman to the world. Although always questioning himself if he should help a person who was against all of his Communist values, Wiesler, continues to hide Dreyman's real actions, and even risks his life to help him by hiding his typewriter. It can be seen how strong Wiesler's moral values because of his decisions to help a person that is not on his side. The ending of the movie was also a bit surprising as I thought that the two characters would eventually meet. However, instead Dreyman dedicates a book to Wiesler which I find touching because he started to write again in order to thank Wiesler. I thought that the movie overall depicted what it was like living in the GDR very well and stuck to what reality would most likely be like, with multiple suicides, and the two characters not meeting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think that the ending kind of surprised everyone, but I liked the ending. I think everyone, especially Wisler was able to get closure, which was nice, in my opinion.
DeletePrompt 4 - I thought it was really interesting that even in such an oppressive society, the characters still have a choice between conforming with regulations and their own beliefs. I think this added a lot more suspense to the film because every individual was burdened with this central dilemma. I also think it's interesting that even though we live in such different environments, we share the same central dilemma of free will vs. conforming.
ReplyDeleteWiesler's empathy towards Dreyman allowed me to connect to and feel the emotion within the movie. Without that connection, I would not have been nearly as interested in the movie, but it instead made me curious as to what would happen next. Although Dreyman was oblivious to the fact that his house was bugged, I liked how he reacted after learning that Wiesler was actually helping him. Rather than being upset, he showed his gratitude towards Wiesler by dedicating his book to him, and that moment was the perfect ending as Dreyman was able to give his thanks to Wiesler.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good point, especially since Dreyman knew that it was Wiesler was the one spying on him. Initially, I expected Dreyman to get very upset about having his entire house bugged and spied on. Dreyman could have blamed the government and Wiesler for all that has happened, especially surrounding Christa. However Dreyman doesn't blame but rather expresses gratitude to Wiesler, which reveals humanity even at its bleakest times. Despite Wiesler and Dreyman being on complete opposite sides, it's quite remarkable seeing how both of the men's humanities come into play when they make decisions. For Wiesler, it was through his actions in favor of Dreyman. And for Dreyman, it was through forgiveness and gratitude for Wiesler.
DeleteI agree, Dreyman handled the situation really well (all things considered) after learning his house had been bugged the entire time. Even though he had every right to be angry towards everyone who participated in the bugging of his house, he instead chose to be grateful towards the one man who put his own job on the line to protect him.
DeleteSomething that really intrigued me about this film was Gerd Wiesler as a character and the manner in which he changes. He starts off as a reliable member of the State Security who has been given a tip that Dreyman may not be as trustworthy as he seems. After the Stasi thoroughly wiretaps his apartment, he spends hours and hours for days on end just listening to the conversations and what he can discern of Dreyman's actions from the taps. I was surprised that he became more sympathetic to Dreyman (and Sieland), and also went out of his way to speak with Sieland at the bar to reassure her and give her the conviction to stay true to herself. He involves himself in helping Dreyman in discreet ways, even though it puts his own life at risk. Something else that I was disappointed in was Dreyman's decision to not speak with Wiesler after his learning that the HGW who saved his life was Wiesler. It didn't seem like closure, though Wiesler eventually learns that Dreyman knows what he did upon reading the dedication in Sonata for a Good Man.
ReplyDelete1) I thought it was interesting how the film showed the truth of the DDR. It made me think about how lucky I am to be able to express myself and criticize government without being ostracized for it. It was crazy watching Wiesler discover the wires in his home as if all the build up of the film was conveyed through the endless wiring he was digging out of his walls. The concept of being spied on by the government is a really important conversation in this day and age in America because of the NSA.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of view. This movie really opened my eyes to the oppression that the citizens of the GDR had to go through during this time. I feel like I've really been taking this freedom that we have for granted.
DeleteThe entire film was very powerful and demonstrated life in the communist GDR very well. The details helped to establish the suppression that the citizens went through. However, I would have preferred that the director establish a little more motivation as to why Wiesler suddenly started to help Dreyman. At the beginning of the film, Wiesler was clearly a strong supporter of the GDR, and as far as I can tell, there is no unique motivation or event that cause Wiesler to become sympathetic with Dreyman, which is why I wished they had established that more clearly. However, as a whole, I felt that the movie was excellent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you William. Wiesler's character development is a bit sudden, and giving the audience a little more insight into him helping Dreyman would enrich the film. However, maybe the director did not reveal that to make the film more suspenseful.
DeleteI agree with you because I barely even noticed that Wiesler had decided to help Dreyman and I honestly still don't even know why. However, the way the plot unfolded was still very good.
DeleteI sympathize with Sieland, who just wants to be able to express herself through acting without political restrictions. In order to do so she must sleep with Hempf although she's in a relationship with Dreyman. In the end, I understood why she would rather betray her lover than have her acting career end once and for all. She's tired of being oppressed by men and the political regime.
ReplyDeleteThe connections between The Lives of Others and Hamlet center around suspicion of the people closest to you. Claudius and Polonius spy and surveil Hamlet, just like the Stasi wiretapping Dreyman. Both persuade women to act like baits, talking with the spyee to leak more information. For instance, Ophelia and Gertrude talked with Hamlet while being spied upon, and Christa-Maria Sieland was blackmailed by the Stasi to help them spy on Dreyman. It is usually the people closest to you, your neighbors and friends, that are likely to be the most threatening because they are most familiar with you. Just like O. Scott's critique "You never know, from one moment to the next, what course any of the characters will chose," your friends or neighbors may betray you whenever it is advantageous.
ReplyDeleteThis movie relates to Hamlet since there's conflict within most of the movie characters. For Dreyman and Christa, both have to choose either to maintain their careers as artists, or expose the truth (Dreyman was regarding suicide and Christa was about who wrote the article). They face pressure directly exerted by the upper power, the government of East Germany. Hamlet faces a similar situation like the two characters. He can either remain as Prince of Denmark and stay alive, or he can reveal the truth about King Hamlet's death. However in this case, he is pressured by the ghost (his supposed father) to reveal the truth. For me, I found it very interesting to see how each character chooses between their own wellbeing or telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how the pressure Hamlet faces is comparable to Dreyman and Christa. I like how you stated that Dreyman, Christa, and Hamlet could have chosen between their wellbeing versus the truth. It would be ideal to have both occur, but how the characters formed their decisions was interesting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInitially after watching the movie, I wished that it had ended with Dreyman and Wiesler meeting in person, but I realized that the actual ending would have a stronger effect on the audience. I think the ending of the film was very bittersweet, with both Dreyman and Wiesler being able to find a sense of closure and answers to some of their questions; Dreyman was finally able to learn about the truth behind both his girlfriend’s death (or what caused her to commit suicide) and about how the typewriter was removed before it could be found from the case files, while Wiesler was able to see the effects his actions had on Dreyman’s life through Dreyman’s book dedicated to him.
ReplyDeleteI also think that it was for the better when they ended the movie without having the two characters meet personally. It gave a more dramatic and emotional appeal to the viewers.
DeleteYeah I agree with you. The ending was kind of bittersweet but at the same time I want the ending to be that way. Since HGW was always mysterious and nonexistent to the artist couple, I think it is more realistic and better for them to not meet each other.
DeleteI thought that this movie had an incredible plot build until the end of the movie where Christa died. During the scene where Christa commits suicide by jumping in front of the truck, I felt very disheartened because I felt that her death was in vain. She committed suicide because she knew she'd betrayed Dreyman and believed that because of her, he'd go to jail. However, it was unknown to her that Wiesler had taken part and hidden the typewriter and I believe that if she'd known Wiesler was on their side, she wouldn't have felt guilty enough to commit suicide and leave Dreyman. However, my favorite part of the movie was at the very end where Wiesler saw the book Dreyman had dedicated to him and felt his gratitude, especially because I sensed that Wiesler felt guilty for not telling Christa he'd helped out Dreyman all those years ago.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the end was very touching and a little bit unexpected of Dreyman
DeleteI agree that it was frustrating that Christa didn't know about Wiesler being on Dreyman's side. She definitely wouldn't have committed suicide if she had known. This probably bothered Wiesler because he couldn't have done much to prevent her death. But I think when he opened Dreyman's book and saw that it was dedicated to him, he felt relieved of everything he felt guilty for.
DeleteI was happy with how the balding agent turned out, as the film sets him up as a stern agent, willing to do anything to complete his mission. I expected him to maintain his role as primary antagonist throughout the movie, but the shift into empathy was heart-warming. It shows how much someone is willing to change and sacrifice for the greater good, as the agent knew how repressive the republic had been in those 40 years.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I initially thought that he was going to remain an antagonist. You could definitely see him shift his alignments as the he realizes the reasoning behind spying on the people was rather petty. Although the ending was heartwarming, I do wish they ended up meeting each other, albeit understanding why the writer was not able to find the words to say.
DeleteI found the ending of the movie to be a bittersweet moment. I was upset how both characters were not able to meet up in person. But when Drayman thanks him, it was in a way Wiesler did not expect, and made him happy for what he did, even though he ended up with a job he didn't want at all. To be honest, If Wiesler did not spy on Drayman at all, Drayman would have been in trouble a long time ago. But with the help of Wiesler, Drayman was able to understand the death of both her girlfriends and his life in general.
ReplyDeleteHi Julia, I totally agree. I think that the two paralleled each other and Wiesler was truly trying to help Drayman. Also, It's really sad that they didn't get to meet each other at the end, but, like you said, hte way that Drayman thanked Wiesler was very sweet.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found that the movie mirrored Hamlet very closely from the parallels of Hamlet and Wiesler in terms of the choices they have to make. Both of them had a clash in political and moral choices, though I will have to admit Wiesler's moral obligation is more set in stone. Hamlet wants to kill Claudius to bring peace to his father, while Wiesler is empathetic, hesitant to turn in Dreyman.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, both of them paid dearly for their deed, Hamlet giving up his life, and Wiesler being demoted to a mail worker. I also found that both stories both were realistic in a way, that the right thing to do doesn't always turn out well for the maker of the choice, and it serves as a psuedo-question to the reader/audience: would you do the same in their shoes?
I think that Hamlet had a very bittersweet ending, but not the Lives of Others. Hamlet is honored by Fortinbras, who even makes his men salute Hamlet, but he, and all of his family and acquaintances, save Horatio, are all dead. Wiesler loses his job, but does he even care about his job anymore at the end of the day?
DeleteI feel like the movie captured the suppression of the citizens of Berlin quite well, and their strong belief in the socialist/communist regime of the time. Some scenes, which portray the reunification of Berlin, however, are often seen as dark or dull, except during the scene of Wiesler's play in West Germany. During this scene, a woman of color is playing Sieland's character. This scene also was significant because it was the only one to show a person of color. I feel like this added "diversity" in casting for the play reflects the ethnically diverse population of West Germany at the time.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think the movie did a fantastic job of truly showing what was going through the minds of the people during that period in Germany.
DeleteThis film created a good glimpse of the lives in Germany at that time and the suppression of the civilians through the Stasi and the GDR. It is terrifying to realize how real it is and how possible that these events could happen today due to the advancement of technology. The film is able to evoke sympathy from the spectators through the clash of different and opposing political views and how it leads to horrid deaths. Overall, it is touching that the director created this film about the German rule.
ReplyDeleteI agree! I had never realized how controversial the time period was in Germany specifically and how the government was taking control of people's daily lives. It was cool to see the reactions of the Germans when the wall was taken down.
DeleteI loved the ending of this movie. Dreyman finally realizes that he was watched by Stasi and one stasi helped him to publish the article. He starts to go see him, but he suddenly decides to ignore him. And 2 years later, he publishes his new novel with mention of his supporter. I think it perfectly fits to Dreyman's characteristic and it is the best way to show his gratitude t supporter as writer.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the scenes in the movie, I can say that the ending is my favorite even though Dreyman made the decision to not confront Wiesler. Although this is not the ending that many people would have preferred, I think it fits with plot and really just the lives of the characters in general. They were both able to help each other indirectly, and the bond was something that was present but not visible to the audience. I think the director of the movie did a good job in preserving the suspense yet also maintaining that sense of warmth between the two characters that developed throughout the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis movie related to Hamlet in a variety of ways, the most direct or obvious way is the amount of mistrust going on in both the film and the play by Shakespeare. In the movie, lots of people were spying on each other either as a job(such as Polonius), or for the betterment of their lives(Christa or Claudius). The minute amount of trust that people have really makes us question the nature of humans.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the ending of the movie. The audience got closure instead of leaving it hanging. Wiesler realized that Dreyman was appreciative of him of being sympathetic and saving him. This is very similar to Hamlet, where Horatio is the ally of Hamlet throughout the play and spies for him and informs him of Claudius and Polonius spying on him. This movie did an excellent job of portraying the expression of gratitude and respect between the characters Wiesler and Dreyman.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, I enjoyed how Dreyman is grateful of Wiesler and what he has done, it really shows that we should be more sympathetic towards each other in such times.
DeleteI would change the film by making the end more dramatic. I felt that time was passing too fast at the end of the film and by slowing the film down at the end, the movie would have had a stronger lasting impact on the viewer. Also, I would capitalize more on the time period of the film by focusing a little more on the mistrust that people had for each other. I definitely enjoyed the film, regardless of these points, but I felt there was a lack of character in Wiesler and I wish that the reasoning behind his actions were a little more explicit.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the film, I didn't really think about how it had similarities with Hamlet, but after watching the film, I would say the espionage in the film is similar to Hamlet. Wiseler spies on others, similarly like Polonius and Claudius spying on Hamlet. Furthermore, Wiseler is skeptical of Dreyman, like Hamlet. Hamlet is initially skeptical of the ghost, and what he is saying is true or not.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the espionage, however, I do believe a huge similarity the two stories have is that there's a sense that everyone's watching your life all the time and everyone is keeping secrets from each other.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just felt that the movie as a whole was overwhelming and heartbreaking-- the relationships between many of the characters weren't very genuine in terms of consistent, sincere love and faithfulness shown to one another. There was passion and affection shown in some moments but distrust and miscommunication in others. Everyone who is human desires love in the most stable, consistent way possible-- but the reason why this movie was deeply disturbing for me was that love wasn't genuine, sincere, heartfelt, real, gentle in it's greatest potential and ways in all aspects emotionally, physically, mentally. There was a deeper void of love that wasn't filled up the way it should have and that was why each character was not genuinely happy or felt loved for realsies.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of the film was "happy" but also really sad to me. I felt that it was supposed to end on a good note, that Dreyman wrote a book dedicated to Weisler. However, I couldn't help but feel bad that Weisler was still so alone and expressionless and just walking the streets (I wanted Dreyman to talk to go talk to him but I guess a book dedication was good enough). His job as a spy was so high of a risk; one wrong move and he fell so so low. I often wonder why someone would take up this job and if Weisler was happy in life.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Great comment alice!!! I did feel happy in the end since the novel was dedicated to him and he realized what this man did for him, however as Sharon stated during the movie it was quite sad as well. This man only tried to help and is suffering the consequences for 20 years.
DeleteI completely agree. I also think that it was a happy-sad ending. I think that the ending was perfect for the story, however it's also pretty sad how Weisler has to suffer for doing something nice. I wish the movie ended without/a change in the consequences.
DeleteOne great aspect of the movie was the constant suspense. It was never clear whether or not Dreyman would get caught doing something wrong and what his mistress would do. It was interesting to see Weisler's change in attitude throughout spying since at first he could not wait for the other man to come and take over his shift so he could simply leave. At first he even noticed the other man was 5 min late and could not wait to leave and just finish with the job, however, by the end when the other man came and told him "I'm not late" Weisler's sadness was evident. He wanted to continue working to help Dreyman and protect him whereas in the beginning he did not care.
ReplyDeleteI think that the historical/political aspect of the movie was really interesting. I feel like to watch this movie, you need some background information on politics at this time to fully understand the movie. I thought it was interesting how Weisler sacrificed his job to help Dreyman. Throughout the entire movie, I only saw Weisler as the "bad guy" spying on Dreyman. This is why I appreciate the ending because the fact that Weisler's true character wasn't fully exposed at the end made it even more meaningful. I thought that the ending was really nice how Dreyman dedicated his book to Weisler. The only part that I might change is Weisler's job. It's pretty depressing how he has to suffer for 20 years.
ReplyDeleteI loved the way how the film portrays the change of HGW from the beginning to the end. HGW begins himself as a gray uniformed, grim looking officer who tortures a dissident with sleep deprivation. But as we see him eavesdropping on the conversations of the playwright and his girlfriend, we begin to see that he too, is a human being. As heartless and invulnerable as he is portrayed in the beginning, he is shown to be a very lonely man, even trying to convince a prostitute to stay with him for awhile and provide him some companionship. But as he listens to the everyday life of the playwright, he begins to sympathize against the system that he originally was enforcing.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Wiesler is shown to have compassion in the later half, although I m still confused as to what might've sparked it.
DeleteIf I had to change the film, I would definitely add more scenes of how HGW started connecting and feeling empathy for the artists. For me, it was a little confusing to see how HGW started helping the artists. I love how the movie showed HGW worrying about them though. Also, I want to add more of HGW feelings. Like did he also want to go against the government? or was he just being nice to the couple?
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated the cinematography. Despite the fact that the movie was in German, it was understandable. The actors did a good job at breaking the language barrier through their acting. I really enjoyed the movie (or the parts that I watched, at least) and if I had another opportunity, I would watch the full movie.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie was very sad and had a powerful meaning on those who watched it. I really liked how the movie showed the gradual change of Wiesler from an emotional police interrogator into someone who can show compassion and care for those who suffer from immoral actions, such as from his superior. The ending was also bittersweet, as Dreyman lost happiness in his life, but Wiesler found out that Dreyman's book was dedicated to him.
ReplyDeleteResponding to the New York Times writer, I think it's interesting that the film lets us see free will as a burden. In this time of history, we are usually taught about how these individuals struggle to obtain their freedom, but in this case it's almost a curse. A wrong choice can unknowingly get them punished. While this also adds to the suspense, it is much more important as a theme about human nature.
ReplyDeleteThis movie had a very strong message for those who viewed it. I enjoyed the change of perspective we see from Wiesler. At first, he seemed to be an emotionless interrogator, doing whatever it takes to get the truth out of others however, as the film goes on, we see he has more emotion and sympathy.
ReplyDeleteSomething I really found interesting in the film was how Weisler is initially very apathetic towards others, but still believed in the GDR and the Statsi. As he witnessed Dreyman and Christa-Maria as a loving couple, he became desperate to try and find a emotional connection like the happy couple had, and he hired a prostitute in desperation. It spoke a lot about Weisler's character that he had devoted his life to the GDR and Statsi, but found he was missing something. Also as a side note in reality Statsi members were watched much more closely and he would have never been able to protect Dreyman.
ReplyDeleteI agree, they seemed all desperate in their own ways.
DeleteIn the film, I realized once again how partial the government was. The tried not to show the world their flaws. However, I was glad that we have at least some people who are willing to take action and stand up for themselves for their country/world.
ReplyDelete