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.
There is not much that I would change about the film because it's pretty good, but I would definitely change up the pacing a little bit. Although the slow pace of the movie builds up tension and suspense, at certain times it just seemed kind of slow. I also feel like some scenes felt repetitive to me, like all the scenes of the guy spying on Dreyman in his room with the computers, there was just too many of those and it was repetitive.
ReplyDelete-Greg Gontier (idk why it says bob)
Yeah, especially when they wanted to convey the romantic aspect of the characters lives. they kept on repeating snuggling scenes and stuff all the time.
DeleteI agree, the movie was a bit slow and repetitive. It wasn't until the end that it started to pick up and become interesting. At times, I felt that the dialogue was kind of dragging on.
DeleteAlthough the action started later in the film, I think it allows for more suspense due to the audience’s knowledge of the entire character development journey that Wiesler has gone through and the build-up of the high possibilities that Dreyman and/or Wiesler can get caught at any moment.
DeleteI agree, I feel like the movie or Wiesler in general wasn't able to efficiently convey what Wiesler was thinking when he was spying. It failed to deliver the message of Wiesler wanting to help Dreyman.
DeleteI was really shocked in how well the stasi agent was able to spy on the poet for so long without being caught. The poet only found out that he was spied on long after Operation Lazlo ended.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree, it seemed a little bit unrealistic because all his friends had doubts about his place and told him it was wired but he just didn't believe them. He didn't even check or anything.
Delete-Greg Gontier
yeah I agree, but I also think about the type of government they were dealing with and it doesn't seem too far fetched or incapable of happening given they (the government people) were so secretive about everything and left no trace behind
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, I thought it was really cringeworthy when Georg blatantly assumed that his house was perfectly fine, considering most other people's houses were being spied on. It was not something that he should have ignored.
DeleteI agree, it was unrealistic that Georg did not suspect anything in his house and kept insisting that his house is safe. If all of my friend's house has been bugged, I would have checked my house to see if there was any camera or anything. I was also surprised by how the security did not suspect the captain for hiding information since they suspected Georg so much.
DeleteI agree that it was really weird how somehow he just did not find any bugs in those years of living in that house. Usually I would break something in my house by then.
DeleteI agree with this statement because he knew that the government were spying on his friends and he just assumed that he was safe since he did nothing wrong. And I think that when the old lady tied his tie for him, he should of asked her whats wrong instead of finding out in the end that he was being spied on.
DeleteYup, I agree with you Karthik. I guess the Stasi was super secretive and good at hiding things that the poet had no clue what was going on.
DeleteFor somebody who's whole personality is ingrained into their society, the fact that HGW becomes and unknowing accomplice to Dreyman is rather weird in that it wasn't a smooth transition. Though it is possible that the reason for that is due to him wanting these human desires of vibrancy and emotion when the film shows his room in contrasts with Dreyman's. It still feels as if this wasn't good enough. The film implies that the "Sonata for Good Men" is what turns Wiesler to Dreyman's side, yet people aren't the sort that change that easily. For someone like Wiesler it has to be something gradual that that film doesn't seem to imply besides the music and the prostitute Wiesler invites over.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree to a certain extent. I do believe that most people would not normally go against the state they serve but I believe in the possibility that there are some good people that would. An example would be Oskar Schindler, who in the midst of the Holocaust, went against the Nazi state and saved the lives of many Jewish families. Basically, although I think it is unlikely that HGW would go against the state, I do believe it is possible.
Delete4. I agree with the statement that "even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will." Throughout the movie I kept wondering and switching back and forth between how they live their lives because they are so oppressed, and how they have free will because of that oppression. I kept seeing that they were able to carry out their own actions and wants even though the government was so demanding, so I agree with the quote and statement fully. I also agree with everything else the quote said about how you never know what a character is going to do (constant emotional back and forth in all of their minds as to whether or not they should do something even though the government will take them down) and the suspense and pacing of the scenes kept me interested.
ReplyDeleteThe aspect of the film that I believe is impactful is the end. When Wiesler buys the book that was dedicated to him shows me how the message of the film is that good triumphs over evil. Wiesler went against what society's rules were in order to help the lives of someone he took compassion for; even though the consequences were the loss of his career. This can be compared to the ending for Christa-Maria who, deciding to betray the trust of her boyfriend, dies. This ending can best be described, by me, as a feels good ending, where the truth is revealed to Dreyman and the recognition for his good deeds are given to Wiesler.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I feel like, throughout the story, every act of good that Weisler had done had only brought him trouble. He tried time and time again to help Dreyland and Siegler. He even was demoted to a mailman position and never said a word. But the ending shows how he was rewarded for his good deeds and that Dreyland is thankful for it.
DeleteI feel as if the way Wiesler changed felt sudden however. Although I can understand being sent into a world as vibrant as Dreyman's it doesn't make one suddenly go to his side after having sexual desires and musical ones. It is a feels good ending but one that doesn't seem like it would exist with how thorough the GDR are portrayed.
DeleteI agree with you Erick. I agree that the ending is showing that Wiesler is getting acknowledged for what he has done in the past, and this serves as a justification for his turning down his job to help someone else.
DeleteI thought the end was impactful too, the little things that told the story to the people who knew what to look for. Georg learns from the red smudge what Wiesler did for him, and Wiesler learns that Georg was grateful from his dedication in the book.
Delete2. Given the moral and political complications and dilemmas, I think that The Lives of Others relates to Hamlet because large part of both works of arts is whether or not to do the right thing, versus something that is terrible but might benefit you currently. I think the two characters-one from each work-that best resemble the moral and political complications and dilemmas are Stasi commissar Gerd Wiesler and Claudius. Wiesler is under a lot of political stress because he is supposed to be in charge of operation Lazlo and making sure that Dreyman doesn't do sketchy things. However, his character development through the movie shows him finally realizing that he is being brainwashed by the GDR and so he begins to choose the morally right path in refusing to give information on Dreyman through altering his reports on Lazlo. He chose the right path, but lost his job for it. This is the setback that Claudius wasn't willing to pay in Hamlet. He is likewise struggling with what is morally right and what is beneficial to his "job" as king. He knows that he has done a wrong thing, but unfortunately cannot repent for what he has done in the past, as shown by his speech where he says, "my words fly up, my thoughts remain below."
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out that Hamlet and this film both have strong undertones of the state against the people. In Hamlet, Claudius repeatedly uses the royal we in front of Hamlet. However, Hamlet is the one who should truly be the king.
DeleteIn addition, this film is a story about sacrifices. In Hamlet, many people die because they are unwilling to give up what they have. For example, Ophelia was unwilling to let Hamlet and Polonius go. However, due to Wiesler's actions, most of the characters remain unharmed.
I agree with your analysis, and to add on both films have major themes surrounding issues of spying, privacy, and as the movie is aptly named, looking into “The Lives of Others”. Wiesler’s entire career deals with spying, while Hamlet’s Polonius constantly spies on others.
DeleteI think O.Scott’s comment is accurate. Although the pacing is intentionally slow and dramatic, the suspense doesn’t necessarily come from that. He’s correct in saying the suspense draws from the oppressive society. The fact that each and every one of the main characters’ action could result in intense punishment creates the drama and suspense. For example, when Christa Maria Sieland is being interrogated, the audience doesn’t know what option she’ll choose. She may choose to give in to love and protect Georg Dreyland. Or she could choose to preserve her livelihood as an actress/ person living in the GDR by giving up the typewriter’s location. And with Weisner, every report he makes comes with the possibility of being found out. Everytime he tries to protect Dreyland for doing something that is made illegal by the stasi but in reality, not harming anyone, he is put in a dilemma: should he protect Dreyland since he’s doing nothing wrong and risk his career or should he throw Dreyland under the bus and advance his and his friend’s career. O. Scott comments on how the idea of free will advances the story,and he is correct. It’s the characters, at times unexpected, actions that drive the story to new heights.
ReplyDelete1. Maybe I might have been the only person to think this, but I didn't realize that Christa-Maria Sieland would sacrifice herself for Georg, I thought she really might have gotten him in trouble, because she could free herself, I also don't exactly understand how the typewriter was removed from the ground. I was also very surprised that for a Stasi at that time, Wiesler could have empathy towards Georg and Christa-Maria.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Christa-Maria Sieland wanted to sacrifice herself for Georg because she revealed the location to Wiesler (a trusted audience). Wiesler took the typewriter so that's why in his last report, he had red ink on it. Wiesler was also there before the other Stasi arrived so he had the ability to take the typewriter.
DeleteThe Lives of Others is a masterful film where a web of artists are caught between their conscience and the state. O. Scott’s thesis that the film’s suspense comes from the fact that individuals have free will, the ability to choose between various courses of actions no matter the situation or society.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with O. Scott’s thesis. In the film, much of the screen time was shared by dynamic characters who evolved and grew throughout the movie. Even though the antagonist of this movie was the German state, there were still two characters that embodied this idea of the secret police. Wiesler is perhaps the best example of this idea. Without his help, it would have been impossible for Georg to publish his article or even remain a free man. However, Wiesler chooses to ally himself to his beliefs and he helps Georg in whatever ways he can, including sacrificing his career to keep him free, even after the article was published.
Another example of this occurring was Christa-Maria Siegland’s eventually decision to turn Georg in. Throughout the movie, Siegland and Dreyman were physically and emotionally close, Siegland still chooses her acting career and her drug use over Dreyman’s freedom. This was rather unexpected as the film had been building their relationship.
Finally, Wiesler’s character building in this film was what creates the suspense in the first place. In the beginning, he was seen marking a student’s name because he thought that the state was unethical. When he interrogated Siegland, his actions were orchestrated perfectly to his lecture. However, this “machine” of a stasi still chose to subvert the regime, a masterstroke by the director.
I agree that Christa-Maria Sieland's decision to rat out Georg was surprising. However, she did what she could and even got rid of the typewriter. I'm sure she still wanted what was best for Georg, but she wanted her own freedom as well and wanted to keep her career.
DeleteI felt the opposite about the surprising factor of Christa-Maria's decision. She has had a history of choosing her acting career over her relationship with Georg; sleeping with other men to maintain her acting position and drugs. Also @Shaunak, Christa-Maria was not the one who hid the typewriter, it was the Gerd Wiesler. When Georg was looking through the documents, you can see a red mark---the red mark was the ink used with the typewriter.
DeleteYeah, @Shaunak, you're wrong. Wiesler was the one who hid the typewriter. Christa didn't know that they didn't find the typewriter, thats why she jumped in front of a truck to kill herself. You should really pay attention to details closer next time.
Delete3. The film is a good perspective into the GDR, and a reflection on human morality. However, the film was not perfect in it's presentation. The Stasi spy, Gerd Wiesler, a supposedly loyal communist, quickly gets interested in art and trying to preserve the couple's freedom. Of course, he might have liked the artists from the beginning, but the film did not explain why he converted from a loyal communist to committing treason. Also, a lot of the film moved at a very slow pace with more focus on random aspects of their lives within the first part. Otherwise, it was a pretty great film to watch.
ReplyDeleteThe Lives of Others relates to Hamlet because of the spying that went on throughout both. In this film, the characters in a position which involves some power (Wiesler and the Stasi) use spying to enforce the power of the Socialist Party. Any leads they collect will be reported to Minister Bruno Hepf and Grubitz and the suspects will be arrested. They suspect Dreyman of conspiring against the party. In Hamlet, Claudius tries to enforce his power and accuses Hamlet of conspiring against him. Polonius takes Claudius's side and offers to spy on his behalf, even though Claudius doesn't care much about him. This is just like Wiesler, who even after all his work following his lead, loses his career after he fails. Polonius also met an untimely end, because he ended up dying as a result of his spying. The spies in both stories, while they make their own immoral decisions to spy, end up being pawns for someone with more power.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the spies are always the pawns in a bigger situation where those with more power control the pawns. Those with power control everyone in their game board, and Shaunak's point about how we all can possibly be pawns in a power play move by those who are with power.
Delete4. I would agree with O.Scott's overall critique: the film's use of music, lighting, and cinematography create immersive scenes reflecting a wide range of tones from more serious and slower-paced moments depicting themes of loneliness or the terror of being constantly under watch (like in Hamlet) to more lighthearted jokes or passionate scenes that reflect the life Weisler is exposed to. However, I feel as though the characters' moral dilemma between choosing security over freedom isn't as random, that it's clear that characters like Weisler gradually shift their decision making to a new line of thinking as the movie progresses.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't take Wiesler's changing opinions seriously enough and it ruined the movie for me. There was just nothing to suggest that he could be moved by the couple in any way that some previous assignment as a veteran of the Strasi and as a teacher wouldn't have moved him. Otherwise the attempts to keep him from interacting with Georg seemed a bit forced at the end but otherwise it was a good movie.
ReplyDeleteIt's still a thing about what to do in the face of what would be considered an unjust well of authority. Hamlet v Uncle, Wiesler v GDR, both wrestle with how to deal with their corresponding figure, though Hamlet makes it clear that his uncle is really just a douche. Wiesler also comes from a place within the system whereas Claudius came in from outside and tried to usurp it.
I personally don't know nearly enough about filmwriting to suggest good changes within the next 30 minutes so I'll keep my mouth shut.
When I consume media I generally take whatever the characters do in stride so I didn't really notice the unpredictability. People be random yo.
It is by monitoring the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria that Wiesler has the change of heart. His morals tell him that it the actions of the system are unethical. A good plot twist comes from hints the writer has placed throughout the story. What brought upon Wiesler's decision to steal the typewriter came from his increasing disapproval of the general's actions. At that moment, he faces his greatest fear of betraying his nation by sacrificing his privileges as a high ranking officer and completes his character arc. He returns to his normal life as a mailman (right?), having changed as a person: more in line with his morals and a good man.
DeleteI agree with O. Scott’s critique of the film. The individuality and sense of morality of each character heightens the suspense and unpredictability of the film. From one scene to the next, a character’s moral compass can completely swing to the other side, and what you expect them to do is usually not in line with what actually happens. At the same time, this volatility, especially in a high pressure situation like this, is likely relatable for the audience and adds another element of humanity to the characters. In a society like East Berlin during the period of the “Iron Curtain,” the oppressiveness of not only the majority of the population’s belief, but also the views of the government, is something that many of us can only imagine. And I agree with O. Scott’s description of free will -- in this situation -- as a burden. Because, in this case, an individual’s free will is not protected by the law, in fact the “law” infringes upon it. However, it’s existence does act as a burden to the individual, because though your individual will may be unlawful, moral responsibility is a factor as a well. Thus, the characters end up burdened by this choice between morality and self-preservation, and both choices are exemplified by Christa and Wiesler’s decisions. While Christa chooses self-preservation, her life ends up being cut short, while on the other hand, Wiesler, who chooses morality, ends up with a long life that is a “demotion.”
ReplyDelete1) As i was watching the film, I really took note of one thing: change. I think a common theme in the film was change. An example of change is when government got involved, it changed the loyalty of others. Christa ends up giving away the hiding spot for the typewriter. It shows that under pressure, society cracks and bondage of many fails. Another example of this theme is the overall change in Wiesler's personality. In the beginning he is depicted as a cold, distant man and as the story progresses, so does he. He becomes the silent ally of the Author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I also thought it was interesting that although Wiesler's personality didn't necessarily change that much throughout the film, his inner emotions were able to change from being against Dreyman to helping him instead. Also, watching Crista also made me realize that her character didn't change much, since she started out cheating on Dreyman and ended up betraying him at the end.
DeleteOverall, I think he director did a very good job on keeping the suspense going in most of the scenes. I like how we can't predict what course any of the characters will choose next. I would change the ending of the film because I really wanted Georg and Wiesler to meet each other once. It seems sad that Georg did not thank Wiesler or talk to him in person but having Georg write a book about Weisler is also great. I just kind of wish they met and the movie ending when they meet each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and while I respect the director's decision to leave that relationship one-way, I think it would've been a very sentimental, and conclusive ending to have the two meet in person. Yet, I thought that it was nice that Wiesler did realize that his good deed had been recognized and appreciated in the end.
DeleteI agree, that the director did a good job and because of that I would not change anything in the film. The way the director made the film was very impactful.
DeleteI agree, that the director did a good job and because of that I would not change anything in the film. The way the director made the film was very impactful.
Delete- samveda Pagay
I agree. While it was harder to grasp at first, the director closed off the movie really well.
DeleteI agree, the ending was as conclusive as it needs to be. Seeing Georg acknowledging Weisler was heartwarming, and seeing Weisler happy despite the fact that he lost his job because of him feels conclusive, and it could not have ended any better in my opinion.
Delete-Jihun Moon
I think it was interesting how every character in the movie was connected, especially Wiesler and Dreyman. It was especially interesting to see how although Wiesler never physically met Dreyman, he eventually felt compelled to help him hide everything illegal he had done. He realized that he felt like it was wrong to do what he was doing and even helped him take away his typewriter before the search team arrived. I was, however, disappointed that although Dreyman knew of Wiesler's existance at the end, and Wiesler knew that Dreyman knew that he had helped him, but they didn't actually meet face to face.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jodi that though Wiseler has never physically met Dreyman, he feels pity for him and eventually wants to help him when the State Security come in the second time to search his house for the typewriter. When the typewriter goes missing the Colonel shifts Wiesler to a different department, but Wiseler feels a sense of relief that he helped Dreyman from the trap.
DeleteI feel the same way about the ending -- although this type of closure, dedicating his book to Wiesler, was such a powerful action, I can't help but wish Dreyman approached Wiesler that time or anytime between the two whole years before Wiesler realizes that Dreyman understands and feels grateful for what Wiesler has sacrificed for him.
DeleteI am also disappointed that Dreyman and Wiesler never met face to face, but I understand why Dreyman let Wiesler be. I feel that he didn't want to impose himself onto Wiesler, because Wiesler, although he spied on him, never directly tampered with his life.
DeleteSame here! the interpersonal connections of this movie are insane. Wiesler had never met Dreyman, and yet decided to forgo everything he had previously believed in, people he had interrogated/tortured in the name of the republic, and save his life.
Delete1) I think that the most interesting thing to me in this film is the desire for change. Wiesler and Dreyman don't know each other, but are connected through their similarities in beliefs. I personally really like Wiesler as a character, I think that throughout the movie, even though he didn't speak much, he said a lot through his facial expressions and reactions. I admire how much he is willing to sacrifice for a cause, giving up his whole career and his life just for a person he hasn't even met. One aspect of the movie that I wish would have been changed but I think is crucial to the story is Krista. I wish she didn't die, but at the same time, she was a rat, so she deserved to die in a way. Even though it seems like it could've been prevented, it adds to the emotion of the movie, and makes it that much better. I like the ending of the film, and how Dreyman and Wiesler find each other in the end, even if not personally, but through words and text, just as they did before.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it was very interesting to watch Wiesler's character change throughout the film. Even though he never physically expresses emotion,you can see how he has formed a bond with Dreyman by the end of the film.
DeleteI particularly enjoyed watching Wiesler change as a character, in the beginning of the film he appears as stone-faced and emotionless, but as the film progresses you can observe him begin to take mercy on Dreyman. It was interesting to see how Wiesler and Dreyman, two character who have never met, form a bond by the end of the film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gavin, Wiesler was truly the hero in my opinion in this movie. Without him, so many things would've gone wrong, and none of this would've happened in the first place. His willingness to sacrifice himself for the greater good is what truly shapes him as a character. Even though there were some flaws in the plan, and Krista ends up actually confessing and dying, Wiesler deserves the credit for the change.
DeleteI think that this film is very similar to Hamlet, in the sense that lies and deception lead to the downfall of many of the characters. In hamlet, Ophelia is forced lie to hamlet and then in the end turns mad. In the movie, Christa is also forced to lie and in the end the lie catches up to her, causing her death. There is someone spying on the main character like there is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who spy on Hamlet. LIke hamlet, this movie's ending also to some extent sad as he is not able to save his lover.
ReplyDelete- Samveda Pagay
DeleteI agree with O. Scott that the film shows how free will can be a burden sometimes. The best example of this is Christa, her love for Dreyman tore her apart when she was forced to snitch on him. Emotions and willpower are needed to enrich our lives, but at the same time they can bring us great pain.
ReplyDeleteShe also killed herself after the search men showed up at their apartment to search for some documents. Dreyman would be upset if he found out that Christa told the men where he hid the evidence. But she had no choice but to tell the truth or she would face charges.
DeleteI was surprised that Dreyman didn't realize until the end of the movie that the State Security was spying on him and he found it surprising that the State Security has files about him. Though Weisler kept track of his actions through listening to conversations in the device that State Security has set place, he forgives Dreyman for his illegal acts by closing the case. Dreyman reads the file, and searches for hyw/7 (Wiseler). Dreyman writes a book two years later after seeing Wiesler on the sidewalk, and dedicates his book to him.
ReplyDeleteI agree I was surprised how Dreyman thought he was safe, when everyone around him thought they weren't. This really shows how Dreyman is trusting, and he doesn't let the stasi's scare him into standing up for what he believed in.
DeleteI felt the same. He should have suspected something because all of his friends were being tracked. It was also surprising that when all of his friends asked if Dreyman's place was safe, the answer "yes" was enough for them to uncover all of their illegal secrets. They should have at least double checked.
DeleteI felt that as a whole the film was tied together relatively cohesively, but one aspect that I had questions about was was why Christa didn't recognize, or recognize and point out, that she had met Wiesler in the past at the bar. At first I was thinking maybe she gets recognized and approached often as she is such a famous actress, but at further thought, I felt that the genuine encouragement Wiesler gave at the bar during a really difficult time for her would've been memorable. In both scenes, Wiesler made no intention to hide his face -- I was expecting the movie to unfold differently from the interrogation scene of Wiesler and Christa had she recognized and pointed out they had met before.
ReplyDeleteI agree and felt that Christa must have been able to recognize Wiesler. I think that she was so stressed in both situations, she would never have seen the man in the bar the same way as the man who interrogates her. It's almost like seeing a superhero like Superman and not recognizing him with his glasses on. In the bar, Wiesler was a hopeful fan, that wanted to show his love for her artistry, and she could never see him another way.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrompt #1: The development of Wiesler's character was the most interesting aspect of the story to me. In the first scenes of the movie he is portrayed as a stone-cold interrogator who is ruthless in both the interrogation room and the classroom. For example, when he put an "X" on the student's name when he questioned Wiesler's tactics on keeping the suspect awake for hours. The first piece of evidence that Wiesler had become less cold hearted, was when he spoke to the little boy. Instead of asking the name of the boy's father, he asked the name of the ball. This was the beginning of his transformation, and it was the point that really hooked me into the story. It was the start of the story in my opinion because it wasn't about "Who got caught" but the change in plot and character. Wiesler's transformation was my favorite part of the movie because it shows how malleable the human mind is, and how some bad people can change into brave, good people. In this case he was Dreyman's hero.
ReplyDeleteWiesler definitely changes throughout the movie. I also felt like in the beginning, he was just a spy who followed orders; he didn't make any choices himself. The scene with the little boy revealed the more humane side of him, and it foreshadowed his character change. Still, I didn't expect to find out in the end that it was Wiesler who'd saved Dreyman.
DeleteI agree with O. Scott's comments that the structure, pace, and, mostly importantly, depiction of the society create a sense of suspense and surprise. The repetitive typewriter scenes were one of the reasons the movie seemed to sometimes drag on. I felt like it gradually grew repetitive, but at the same time, it added to the monotonous and structured lifestyles in East Germany. It's unknown whether this is what the director was intending, it did add to the depiction of society. There were a number of plot twists in the movie: Krista discovering the hiding spot and leaking it, Wiesler siding with Dreyman, etc. The contrast between the two characters is clear, as Krista chooses to betray Dreyman in order to save herself while Wiesler decides to stand up for what he believes. After the relatively slow beginning, the character's decisions towards the end reflected the toll society took on them and the choices they made.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think the slow pacing toward the beginning is accounted for in the end when we witness all of the unexpected events happening. The contrast of Krista and Wiesler is surprising because in the beginning, the audience would've thought that Wiesler would end up to be the evil character, but instead he proved himself to be good. I suppose you could say Krista betrayed Dreyman, but it's her decisions and actions to get to that point that are the most surprising.
DeleteI believe one of the more incredible parts of the film is in the character development throughout the entire cast. The film starts off by perfectly encapsulating the essence of their characters, their motivations, and how they feel politically. As the film plays out, we start to see some changes and how these dynamic characters begin to evolve. The first example would be Weisler and the changes his character goes through. At the start of the film, it's very clear he has a very low margin of error and is perfectly aligned with the regime. Nearing the end of the film, we can see multiple instances where he steps outside of his role and shows his progression as a character. From first talking to Christa-Maria to eventually removing the typewriter from Dreyman's house, we can see how he's evidently evolved and started to perform his job by letting his personal opinions influence him. It's also notable to inspect how Christa-Maria was clearly influenced by the current regime in place, as she changed from a loyal girlfriend at the beginning to one who was forced to do things as the film progressed that her character didn't embody.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think that Christa's character development was very strong as well as Weisler's. As Christa progresses through the film, we see her go through a lot of conflict, from both the Stasi and the Minister, and it heavily influences her actions and her loyalties. Eventually, she feels too much pressure from both sides, and kills herself, which shows the effects of the Stasi's regime at the time.
DeleteI agree that the character development of all of the characters was crucial to the development of the film. Not only did Weisler change from a ruthless Stasi investigator responsible for protecting the State, but the increasing pressure on Christa, whether it be preserving her love to her husband, maintaining her career as an actress, or satisfying the higher government, drastically changed her decisions over the course of the film. Through Christa, the film shows the true effect of the Stasi regime on each individual citizen, as one cannot be themselves without being prosecuted and would prefer death over containment.
DeleteI agree that the characters were very well established in the beginning of the film and really set up the rest of the film. From his lecture, he was systematic and ruthless, holding 48 hour interrogations and marking the student for saying that the interrogation was inhumane. I think that the character progression, for Christa, Weisler, and Dreyman, really make the film what it is and why it is so interesting.
DeleteI agree with Manoj. Each one of the characters grew and became more intricate than what they were before. It is especially interesting how Weisler grows as a character because the person he becomes conflicts entirely with his job and country. Weisler eventually is dealt with an internal struggle much like Hamlet on what to do.
Delete4. I agree with O. Scott in the sense that the film builds up suspension through the slow pacing of the movie, given there is not a lot of action until the end. Suspension is also built from the fact that the characters can make any decision at any time, without being predictable. For example, Christa made the decision to reveal that Dreyman wrote the article, but when she was brought in for questioning, she claimed she made the statement up. When Wiesel continued to pry the answer out of her, she gave in and told him exactly where the typewriter was. In my opinion, I think this is a good way to show the audience that as humans, we might not have complete free will, since we are influenced by our surroundings and selfishness.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the suspense is created by the characters unpredictability, and especially Wiesel and Christa. I had no idea what they were going to do.
DeleteThis film relates to Hamlet because the woman lead character resembles Ophelia in many ways. For example, Ophelia is used by Polonius, and subsequently Claudius, to spy on Hamlet for the state. On the other hand, Christa-Marie Sieland is forced to spy on her husband because of her dependence on medication. Although both characters work for the state at one point, they never sell out their husbands and perish at the end. Another similarity is the overwhelming power of the state. The Stasi and the Denmark King both are able to go to extreme means to kill off their targets. In a more common case, the targets would be killed off silently, but for cinematics, these stories involve miraculous stories of survival coupled with tragedy.
ReplyDelete1. react
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'd have liked Weisler to continue to have a successful career, I think it would have weakened the impact of Dreyman's novel dedication. Because Weisler had fallen so far after sacrificing his career for Dreyman, it made Christa Marie's betrayal and death that much more meaningful, and the ending scenes where Weisler delivered mail that much more impactful for the audience. Without the risk factor he took, the audience wouldn't have been as drawn in to the plot, and Weisler's characterization wouldn't have been as strong. His character arc is insane as we see him evolve from a lonely, cold hearted, interrogator to someone who puts himself at risk for the sake of others, illegal, law-breaking others, whom he had never met. Although I would have loved to have Weisler and Dreyman meet, to have Dreyman ask Weisler why he stole the typewriter, why he didn't expose him as the author of the article in the Spiegel, or why he put his longstanding career in jeopardy for this man he had never met, I do think it's a great ending. There may not have been a clear answer on Weisler's behalf, and for Dreyman, dedicating a piece of art to an art-loving Weisler, is the perfect gratification.
I think that the most interesting aspect of the film was the character development of Weisler. From the get go, Weisler comes off as an antagonist; he is part of the Stasi, he is interrogating this seemingly innocent artist while the artist suffers, and overall he seems like a ruthless, emotionless agent. But as the movie progresses, we get more insight into his motives and his morals. We begin to see some remorse and compassion from Weisler, such as when the author plays the piano following the playwright's suicide, and Weisler cries. In the beginning of the movie, it seems that Weisler is a blind follower of the Stasi, but at moments like these, it becomes apparent that he begins to realize that they are cruel, and begins to make decisions based on his own morals. Another example is when he meets the little boy in the elevator. The part of Weisler that follows the Stasi asks the boy for the name of his father, presumably so the Stasi can arrest him and throw him in prison. But Weisler's conscience stops himself, and instead he lets the man go. This is about midway through the film, and we see the internal conflict in Weisler: part of him is obliged to follow the Stasi, and the other part of him wants to follow his own morals. By the end of the film, we see that his own morals eventually prevail. Weisler saves Dreyman, even at the cost of his livelihood and job, a selfless act that brings him no gain, but saves someone he barely knows. Its this character development that I think is one of the most interesting aspects of the film.
ReplyDelete-Arul Gnanasivam Pr. 2
I also agree with the points you made regarding Weisler's character development. He initially begins as a clear enemy as he's aligned perfectly with the regime and out to convict Dreyman. As the film progresses, we start to see changes in his character as he develops compassion and starts to care for the couple. I definitely would agree that this made the film much more interesting and added another complex layer to comprehend.
DeleteI also agree with your interesting take regarding Weisler's character! I think the elevator scene where his conscience stops himself is a very clear sign of his change as a character and how he is developing a selfless moral nature that he didn't have at the beginning. Another scene, I thought was impactful was when he found Chrstia-Maria at a Cafe to save their relationship. This change makes the film more interesting and allows the audience to really delve into its thematic messages.
DeleteI liked the ending of the movie because although it would have been more satisfying if Dreyman and Wiesler met directly, it parallels their relationship that was portrayed throughout the movie. In the movie, Dreyman never directly interacted with Wiesler and didn't suspect as strongly as others did that the GDR, specifically Wiesler was spying on him. The conclusion is very similar, except that Dreyman is now the "spy" who is looking after Wiesler. Even after finding out about Wiesler's past actions, Dreyman decides to observe him from a distance and thank him, indirectly, through the new novel. Meanwhile, Wiesler does not realize that Dreyman has uncovered the truth until he picks up the book at the bookstore. I feel that if they met, it would feel more "complete" as a film, but by revealing that the two acknowledge each other but their paths do not cross, it gives a sense of continuity to the movie.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think of their second encounter this way until now. Good point. Although the two never exchange words, Wiesler is able to do a good deed for Georg and Georg thanks him for it in a great way.
DeleteEarlier in the film, Wiesler is portrayed as a cold-hearted mastermind; this changes when Operation "Lazlo" introduces him to Beethoven, love, and moral rebellion. The audience sees that Wiesler has a heart and cares for others, contrasting from his outer facade. Working an odd job as a mailman, Wiesler is all but a respected figure by the end of the movie. The bookstore owner has no idea of the hero Wiesler was for Georg. Maybe there are unnamed heroes like him around us.
ReplyDelete1) I think that the most interesting thing about the movie was the theme of loyalty. When Christia was brought in for questioning she disclosed the information on the hidden typewriter and Georg's involvement in the anonymous article released to the "Speigel."Christia's shady involvement with the Stasi and the communist government in a last attempt to save herself, shows the betrayal she had brought upon Georg. In Communist East Germany, the people who you trust the most can expose you, and put you in grave danger, so they could make it out alive. In an ironic twist of fate Christia dies in a car accident, it was needless to say she did deserve the fate she was given. It seemed unlogical to me because she did not purposefully try to kill herself.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting aspect of the film was the character development of Wiesler and how it affected the film. Wiesler had the the most power in the most power in the movie. He began as a Stasi spying and eavesdropping on the Dreyman’s conversation. However, as Dreyman’s life story continues and overcomes different obstacles in his life, Wiesler because empathetic for Dreyman and connects with him even though he has never interacted with him before. In fact, he becomes so involved he saves their relationship by finding Christa-Marie. Thus, the end is incredibly impactful. Throughout the movie, we slowly see Wiesler’s character development unfold; he leaves details out of his report and saves their relationship. At the end, however, Wiesler is put to the test. The audience doesn’t know whether he has changed enough morally to lie to his state. When Dreyman finds out of the selfless actions by Wiesler and dedicates the book to him, the story has made a full circle.
ReplyDeleteYes, I strongly agree with your point that the character development of Wiesler was the most interesting and powerful aspect of the film. From the start, I was really confused on whether he was a good guy or a bad guy because there was just something in his eyes or facial expression that made me feel like he was a good guy even though he was doing immoral stuff. It was very interesting how Wiesler chose 20 years of his life mailing over being a high employed interrogator, but this showcases his change most strongly. I also agree with your point that the ending where Wiesler gets a book dedicated to him was very powerful as you stated "the story has made a full circle". I think Wiesler still feels guilty for Christa-Marie's death because he thought he planned it out perfectly, but in the end there was one fault. Wielser was definitely an interesting subject.
Delete1) At first, I was really confused about the film; I could not differentiate who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. At first I thought the playwright was a bad guy because of how the Stasi portrayed him, but as the film progressed, I learned that he is actually the victim. I also realized the Weisler was supposed to be the bad guy from spying on Georg, but there was a sense of understanding in his eyes, which made me feel like he is not heartless like is coworkers. This film is very moving and it portrays the great lengths that people been through for revolution. It also shows that there is good and bad in people and that people can change. The film makes me feel grateful for the country and world that I live in because I am free and do not have to deal with these problems such as people spying on me. THe film also shows the corruption of power and the unjust use of it as shown in the minister. I am still confused about the medicine that Christina was taking and what it did. The ending of the film was phenomenal because Georg could have easily thanked Weisler in person; however, he spent two years writing a book dedicate to him.
ReplyDeleteThe film is meant to be confusing in the sense that there was a loss of identity, and in your case, you don't know who was the good/bad guy. In the beginning, it was obviously Wiesler who worked with the state security to rat out people who can contradicting belief to East Germany, but as Wiesler closes follows the couple, he is exposed to different emotions which contradicts with his beliefs.
DeleteI was quiet confused in the beginning of the film as well. I was not sure what exactly was happening because there was no context about what was happening in Germany at the time. But like you, I think I understood the film as I watched it. I think the medicine that Christa was taking was an illegal substance. She is addicted to it and when she went against the minister, he used it as an excuse to arrest her and interrogate her
DeleteI think I was really shocked when Agent Wiesler hid the typewrite from the other agents. I thought that was bad thing to do because he hurt his career in the process of helping someone
ReplyDeleteI think the reasons behind why Weisler, a Stasi Captain, would choose to risk his career and help someone shows a lot about what the society he lived in. He was introduced as a strict and demanding captain but in the end, he saved someone's life and gave up everything. I thought this decision was the result of him actually listening to everything that Dreyman had said day and night, and even just coincidentally meeting Christa at a bar, eventually developing a sort of empathy and change of mind.
DeleteThe film relates to Hamlet because their is a tragic ending and someone is dead. Christia killed herself after she saw the search men about to search the secret compartments. THis is ironic because she had no clue Georg already moved the evidence and hid it somewhere else.
ReplyDelete
DeleteI totally agree with you Denver. The whole movie revolves around the Stasi operating in the country unnoticed, yet when Wiesler tries to save Georg from years in prison, he cannot explicitly reveal to Georg what he had done. However, I believe that Christa's death is partial due to guilt, regardless if she knew that the typewriter was taken away by Wiesler.
I liked Wiesler's character development in the film. In the beginning he's a ruthless spy who follows orders, prioritizing the party and the state over things like humanity or compassion. But once he was exposed to Dreyman and Dreyman's life, which is full of emotion and humanity, he started to change. He didn't ask the little boy for his father's name, even though the party would have wanted him to. He didn't report any of the stuff he heard going on in the apartment, at first saying it would be "just this once", but he ended up actively helping Dreyman evade capture. He also breaks his rules by talking to Christa after her fight with Georg, and that came back to haunt him when he had to interrogate her and hope she wouldn't recognize or tell on him. His humanity shows through in his actions.
ReplyDeleteWiesler is a very interesting Character. When we were first introduced to him, he was strict, cold-hearted and when the student said his interrogating methods were "inhumane", the student was marked. He works for the Stasi and seemed very hardworking. He then started to change throughout the surveillance. He started hiding some information he found and in the end, helped Georg, the artist he is supposed to spy on and expose. He risked his whole career to help Georg. There is a huge contrast in Wiesler's behavior from the beginning to the end of the movie. This shows that even hardworking, dedidcated, cold-hearted people can change their minds, can be understanding and forgiving.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you explored the change in Wiesler's personality. I found him to be a very interesting character. Circumstances can really change the way certain people are.
DeleteI agree that there is a change in Wiesler's behavior from the beginning to the end of the film. It shows how people can be influenced by others.
Delete1) I love the the change that occured within the characters as the movie went along. This character change as correlates with the change that was going on in Berlin in general. Wiesler starts off by being a cutthroat interrogator and is very conservative in his beliefs for Germany. But as his observes the lives of artists, Gerog and Christa he changes. What I believe is that, Wiesler was very inspired by the views of the two artists. He shifts his opinion from being conservative to being radical. He does everything in his power to not let the two get caught while making it obvious to the couple that they were not being spied on. He played the game of splitting his personality. He needs his career so he has to be on the side of the state but his views are now aligned with the couple. Splitting yourself up this way is not easy for anyone to do. But Wiesler does it very well. His boss is suspicious of him but he can never find evidence. He got himself in trouble for the people that inspired him to be radical just like how Berlin turned on its views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on Wiesler's act of splitting his personality for the State and for the couple. It can be said that he might have one of the biggest dilemmas out of the characters in the film. He had to juggle with two sides that are supposedly the good and the bad side. And he does a very nice job. So I find him to be a really wise man, not only because they can't find any traces that lead to him but also his quick reactions in unexpected situations.
Delete-Angel Tseng (per.3)
I agree with you, Wiesler's mindset really changed from observing Christa and Georg. I also really like the change in characters too, Christa was great from the start, but betrayed in the end. Wiesler was cold hearted at first, but turned out to be a hero.
DeleteI totally agree. I loved seeing Wiesler's shift in character. You can really see his desire to change after he witnesses Christa and Dreyman's "true love" story.
Delete4) As NY Times writer O. Scott notes, the true suspense in the movie came not only from the sequence of events and realizations by characters, but the unique impact of freedom that a society without privacy entails. This movie was presented in three different aspects, from patriotism through the GDR, the strive for freedom through Dreyman, and the humanitarian considerations by HGW. Through a show of gradual emotion by Wiesler, he builds on the suspense of the entire film by changing his beliefs through surveillance. The irony in that is he utilizes both sides to gain that perspective and he chooses to help Dreyman in his cause. If he had not been assigned to watch Dreyman, Wiesler never would have made the sequence of decisions it took to free Dreyman. Yet if Dreyman had outwardly rebelled without letting Wiesler form that connection with him, he may have ended up in custody far before Wiesler could change his mind. Each small decision made the biggest impact on the end result, because the freedom of expression at that time wasn't allowed. Everything was recorded and used, from CMS's surprising testimony against Dreyman to Wiesler's increasingly suspicious behavior around his captain. Those subtle nuances shown in the characters faces and hesitation expressed the true suspense of the film, the suspense accumulated when people chose to be themselves, and not who the Stasi wanted them to be.
ReplyDelete1.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting seeing how Wiesler went from being a strict government agent to covering for Dreyman. By spying on Dreyman, Wielser was kind of sharing Dreyman’s life through his experiences, so as Dreyman became more and more convinced to rebel against the DGR, so did Weisler. I was disappointed that Wiesler and Dreyman never met, but at the same time I’m unsure about what they would say to each other. On one hand, Wiesler was spying on Dreyman, but on the other, he lied to the government about Dreyman’s illegal activities. Their relationship is so complicated that it was probably easier for them not to directly interact.
It is sad that all of the main characters have sad endings, such as Christa dying and Wiesler handling letters for the rest of his career, but that also makes the film realistic. Hearing about the celebrations from the Berlin Wall coming down emphasizes that even though the characters didn’t have happy endings, they were part of the resistance that eventually helped create happy endings for others.
4. I agree with the critique that the events in the movie are unpredictable. As seen in the cafeteria scene, one of the younger government workers jokes about the sun leaving the east to the west in front of the Wiesler and Grubitz. The scenes before illustrate the totalitarian regime that heavily controls its people, so to the audience the joke is clearly inappropriate. What is puzzling about the scene is the schizophrenic act of Grubitz; he initially laughs at the joke, then threatening the worker, and finally laughs again while delivering his own joke. The purpose of the scene is to confused the audience and establish not only moral ambiguity with the beliefs of head officials but also the absurd sternness of Wiesler, who is mostly deadpan across the whole movie. The audience normally has to rely on their own intuition and movie analysis to predict upcoming events but "The Lives of Others" surprisingly contradicts this notion with sudden revelations and unfinished scenes that leave the audience perplexed and wanting to know more.
ReplyDeleteI like how Wiesler still retains most of his personality in the movie but actually gains more empathy. It makes the character feel real and believable. The movie does a good job on making the audience confused on why certain people act the way they do. Even Wiesler, who we thought was going to turn Dreyman in multiple times ends up not going through with the action which keeps the audience on the edge of their seats.
DeleteRahul Ravi
Delete1. I like how the movie was very consistent throughout, although the pacing may seem slow, I think it was realistic. At first, I questioned why Dreyman never tried to search for bugs in his house, when he knew all his friends were under surveillance, but came to realize that it could be ignorance, which is a very humane response. He didn't want to believe that his house could possibly be bugged so he never thought of searching. The part of the movie that impacted me the most was the ending, when Wiesler goes into the book store after seeing the advertisement banner for Dreyman's new novel, "Sonate vom Guten Menschen", and sees the dedication to him. Although the two never met, Wiesler was able to feel the gratitude just by reading the first page. I really like the dialogue between the clerk, asking if he needed to gift wrap the book but Wiesler responds with "No, this is for me". It has a double meaning, the physical book he is buying is really for himself but the book is also written to him. After all the things the characters been through, especially Wiesler, this simple gesture yet impactful couldn't be more fitting, in terms of the pacing and style of the movie.
ReplyDelete1. After watching the film, I find Wiesler to be the most interesting character. I would say that he is the main character, and not Dreyman. He has gone through a very deep character development, starting from an emotionless person to someone who is willing to go against his orders and follow his mind. He starts out spying on Dreyman and Christia, where he notes their daily routines and every move. However, he starts to sympathize with them when they struggle in their own dilemmas. He listens while Dreyman plays the piano, that was a moment where they bonded, as two men somehow become closer because of their solitude. Wiesler later then lies for Dreyman and even removes the typewriter to save Dreyman's career. To me, Wiesler isn't a bad character from the very beginning, his goodness was just hidden because he decided to follow the State Security. But Dreyman and Christia's struggle of free will under an oppressed society wake Wiesler's sympathy and goodness from his heart. I really like the end where Wiesler finds out that Dreyman knows about what he did for him. Wiesler knows that the book is dedicated to him so he didn't want to wrap the gift. And the director did well for the ending. It was an open ending for free interpretation. And who knows? They might meet in the future.
ReplyDelete-Angel Tseng (per.3)
I agree that Wiesler is the main character, who went through the biggest and most prominent character development. His stoic demeanor also made his betrayal to the State Security more dramatic, because you would never expect a man like him to ever go against the rules. I also really like the ending because it was fitting and free for interpretation.
DeleteI agree, I like Wiesler's character. It's interesting because he goes through this whole transformation throughout the movie, but throughout the whole time no one notices. He lies to the government so well that they don't really suspect him of being other than what they think he is until the end either. And he spies on Dreyman and Christa for so long that he feels like he personally knows them and they inspire his transformation, but they don't ever really know who he is.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with O Scott's comment about how you never know what any of the characters will do from one moment to the next because of free will and their emotions. Christa's death was shocking to me, but at the same time I understand why she died. Christa threw herself in front of a truck instead of facing Dreyman when he realizes that she ratted him out and it shows how much she's willing to sacrifice for him. I wish she didn't die, but I also think she has to die because she did snitch on Dreyman.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Her death was shocking. She shouldn't have died but she should have faced what she got herself into.
DeleteI agree. I think she died because she felt so guilty. If she waited for 1 second, she would have known that the typewriter wasn't there and she would be alive still.
DeleteI agree that Christa's death was good riddance, but if you were in her shoes, wouldn't you also make the same decision?
DeleteI also thought Christa-Maria's death was shocking and think she committed suicide because she didn't want to face the consequences of telling the Stasi officers all the secrets.
DeleteI agree. Christa-Maria's death was surprising to most people. She died because of guilt. Even though she was working with the state I dont think the way her character was portrayed throughout the movie she was built to be an " informant". She wasn't strong enough emotionally or mentally to do the things that is required of an informant.
Delete
ReplyDeleteHamlet relates to this movie because the motifs that are repeated are betrayal, lying/secrecy, and spying. In the book, Hamlet pretends about being mad and has Horatio keep it a secret. Ophelia lies to Hamlet to protect her father and the king when they were spying. Hamlet feels betrayed and hurt by this since he knows the truth. Hamlet's childhood friends betrays their friendship and his trust when they willingly help the king in acts that would kill Hamlet. Polonius spied on everyone to help the king. In the movie, Christia betrays Gerog when she rats him out about the illegal things he did. Wiesler spies on the couple and lies in the reports to protect them. Loyalty is important in the movie, but the writer and spy betray their country.
-breann divoll
I agree that Hamlet and the movie are related because of the concurring themes of betrayal and spying. Gerd Wiesler is similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Wiesler spies on Georg and Christa-Maria to gain information that he can send to his bosses. Likewise in Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are also succumbed by Claudius to spy on Hamlet and find out more about his craziness and bring back information to him.
Delete- Eileen Yang
The aspect I enjoyed about the film is the transformation Wiesler goes through as he learns more about Dreyman and becoming obsessed with his life. In the beginning of the film, we see Wiesler as this apathetic man striving to be as efficient as possible. He is ruthless and his need to master something becomes apparent in the film. He draws the exact layout of the apartment and listens in on conversations in the apartment for hours at a time. A first clear sign of Wiesler changing was in the elevator with a boy. The boy reveals something about his father that would normally be seen as treason to the state. Wiesler decides not to do anything about it and leaves this alone. He grows to be more empathetic and starts hiding the things Dreyman does. By the end of the film, Wiesler sacrifices his career for this man as he realizes how things are too far gone in the Stasi.
ReplyDeleteRahul Ravi
Delete1) I think this movie was very interesting. It took a turn when the typewriter was hidden by Wiesler. He seemed like a cold blooded man but he ended up saving Georg. It was a plot twist that he changed and did something life saving for someone. I do like how when he found out he was saved he dedicated his next book he wrote to Wiesler.
ReplyDeleteWhen Christia ratted out Georg her fate that was given was deserved. Even though it was a bad thing.
-Azra
1) I found this film enjoyable because of the development of Weisler from a cold lifeless machine to person who cares for others. We really see Weisler's true self when he decided to take the blow by getting rid of the typewriter. Although Weisler got demoted from his current job, George respects him for his decision and decides to write a book about him[Weisler]. In a world where ones livelihood solely depended on loyalty to the state, Weisler decided to sacrifice his standing in order to help George
ReplyDelete2. In the film, Gerd Wiesler is similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Wiesler spies on Georg and Christa-Maria to gain information that he can send to people that he is working under. In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are also brought to Claudius so that they will be able to spy on Hamlet and find out more about his mental state. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are also similar to Christa-Maria. Christa-Maria and Georg are in a relationship but Christa-Maria betrays him by telling the Stasi officers where the typewriter and documents are located. Similarly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were childhood friends with Hamlet but betrays Hamlet to work with Claudius. Georg and Christa-Maria's relationship is similar to Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship. One betrays the other and Ophelia and Christa-Maria both commit suicide. In both the film and Hamlet, the countries are having problems of their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree how the character of Christa is similar to Guildenstern and Rosencrantz because they are both manipulated by someone with greater power to spy on someone they care about. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz get called upon to spy on Hamlet and figure out why he is mad while Christa snitches on Dreyman when she tells the officers where his typewriter is located.
Delete1) I like how Wiesler is portrayed in the movie and how we are able to see the character change. In the beginning of the movie Weisler is portrayed as this unemotional man who is loyal to the state. But once Weisler started to spy on Dreyman his whole mindset and beliefs started to change. In multiple scenes Dreyman could have gotten in deep trouble but Weisler protected him. At the end of the movie Weisler was the one who moved the typewriter that was inside Dreyman's apartment and that saved Dreyman from being locked up. While listening to Dreyman everday Weisler loyalty to the state started to slowly go away. He also starts to show sympathy for people
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed how Wiesler was portrayed and how he develops. Wiesler was a key role in saving Dreyman. Wiesler risked his job and safety in breaking the rules given to him in order to protect Dreyman.
DeleteI felt that the fact Wiesler's alliance with sits awkwardly with me until the end of the movie where he show appreciation to the novel that Dreyman has dedicated to. Throughout the movie, Wiesler had an identity crisis, and his continuous lack of compassion did not line up with the freedom he is giving the writers. The conflict of his identity is confusing, and although the audience understands that Wiesler is not completely sure of his identity in society; therefore, making it awkward for the audience. I think for the audience to feel the emotions that Wiesler, who is a human robot, felt demonstrates how powerful the movie was able to demonstrate the internal conflict within a person because internal conflicts is hard to express without looking into a person's thoughts directly.
ReplyDelete1) I think that there were a lot of twists in the movie, making it more interesting. Personally, I think Wiesler's transition is interesting because of how little you expect it. As Dreyman changes, Wiesler lives through him and changes with him, arguably more than Dreyman himself does. The biggest surprise to me was the scene where he was crying when Dreyman was playing the piano. It was a sad scene, but throughout the movie Wiesler is portrayed as such a systematic and robotic character, him showing emotion revealed a whole new side. Even when he is punished or working, he doesn't show emotion, but times like when he confronts Christa at the bar, it shows that he is more human than seems.
ReplyDeleteThe Lives of Others is a drama where the suspense is built through dialogue. They are used by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck to expertly craft tension as well as character development. Although the film being a slow-moving narrative, the pace is perfect for the tone it sets. Furthermore, the 4 main characters set up a 4-way contrast with each other. Put into a chart with loyalty to the state at the top and corporal thinking at the left, Grubitz fits neatly into the top left spot while Dreyman represents the bottom right. The character of Christa-Maria is bottom left, putting Wiesler at the top right corner. Together, the characters and the pacing create the perfect formula for a film depicting society. It is able to delve into each of the morals and mindset of the characters to find the truth of our world. The film suggests that your loyalty to friends and close ones matter most in the end, since both characters representing loyalty to the state either end up dead or out of power.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the humanization of Wiesler since it added a lot to the dynamic of the people and society. The movie starts him off as a cold and stoic character, pretty sinister in his actions since he's targeting the writer who seems more human than him. But as the movie progresses, we see other sides of Wiesler. We see him in his home, cooking a cold meal by himself looking solemnly into his tv since he has no one to talk to. We also see him with a prostitute, most likely to console his loneliness further humanizing this otherwise static personality he had. Along with the fact that he helped out the writer at the end, probably due to some sort of pity and or compassion, it was nice to see a character develop this way without directly imposing situations to the character. For someone who was seen living a mostly vicarious life, Wiesel went through an interesting development that I thought was neat.
ReplyDeleteThis is tommy btw.
Delete1) I really wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy The Lives of Others. Personally, I thought the movie was slow paced to begin with, but as the story progressed and things really started to pick up speed, I began to appreciate the film and its characters to a greater degree. I believe it was right in the middle of the movie, where Weisler begins hiding information about Dreyman, that Weisler begins to unfold and reveal his true self to the audience which is ultimately the cause for the sudden incline of suspense and overall enjoyment of the film. I really enjoyed this movie mainly due to Weisler's character transformation. I found myself growing fond of him in a strange way and I began to feel empathy for him. This is, of course, what movie directors want from their audiences so that's a clear sign to me that this was a well made movie.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the film, I wished Christa didn't die and I also wished that Weisler and Dreyman met.
But overall, this movie was great. If I could change anything, I wouldn't.
I think it would be very interesting if Wiesler and Dreyman met, but I think that they already "met", or, had a conversation. Even though it was indirect, I had a feeling that they conveyed everything they wanted to tell the other person already.
DeleteI agree with both you and Cynthia, I liked that the ending was rather indirect and reflecting their relationship of watching each other from a distance (Wiesler spying on Dreyman, Dreyman finding out the truth about his case files and Wiesler). I feel that thanks to Dreyman and Christa, Wiesler can now appreciate the little things in life without being too uptight, which was required of him when he was working for the GDR.
DeleteI personally enjoyed watching Weisler develop as a character from being a very strong willed communist helping the regime to developing mercy and an understanding of the passion and diversity of Georg and Christa. In the beginning of the film, Weisler was a stubborn yet common man who live a simple life following a routine and took orders from his boss Grubitz. He was assigned to spy on Georg Dreyman and Christa-Maria Sieland because his organization suspected Georg was a criminal. He became obsessed with their passion, love, and trust they have with each other which has changed him for the better. Once he was caught helping Georg in a way to find the evidence of the typewriter, he sacrificed his career to help him get out of the situation be prove he is “innocent”. The lives of others can really shape another’s if they pay attention.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked seeing Weisler grow during the movie; I feel like it was this case that he got as well as his sudden desire to help the Dreyman that helped him realize that what Weisler was doing was not correct.
DeleteOne theme that was deeply rooted in the film was the idea of fear. Everyone in the play was afraid of something and that emotion drove the characters to act in rash ways or go against their moral compass. In Christa’s case, she had the fear of losing acting career and her freedom. In order to protect those things from getting harmed, she acts as a puppet for the government. In the beginning of the film, we see Christa as an actress living in fear, being submissive to the minister. But when Dreyman expresses his love for her and tells her not to go, there is a shift in her actions and the love wins, which was her first sign of rebellion. But due to this act, she gets on the bad side of the minister and is pulled into interrogation. She feels defeated because the one act of rebellion that she did led to severe consequences. We see her mad in the interrogation room and she reveals Dreyman’s actions. Wiesler is similar to Christa in the sense that he too was submissive to the government in the past. He followed orders thoroughly which is why he was assigned to spy on Dreyman. But as he spys on Dreyman, Wiesler develops a connection with him. He tries to hide all of Dreyman’s illegal actions and even helps him by retrieving the typewriter. This is the contrast between these two characters. Christa remains submissive to the government till the end whereas Wiesler takes control of his actions. He gets rid of his fear for the government and is not afraid of consequences which leads to his freedom.
ReplyDeleteI agree that fear is a major theme in the movie, but I think that Wiesler is not necessarily afraid of the government. Since he originally believed in the government system and was very successful as an officer, he was wary of people when they showed suspicion, but I don't think he was afraid. Wiesler seemed worry more about Dreyman getting caught and openly advocated for the government to stop keeping watch over Dreyman despite how implying this could make him an enemy of the government.
DeleteThroughout the film, it shows how Gerd Wiesler has changed. It portrays Gerd Wiesler as an indifferent and unemotional character in the beginning of the film. As he spies on the lives of other people, Georg and Christa, he thinks about individualism. Then he finally realizes that the totalitarian regime is not a good form of government because it regulates and controls individual freedom. When he eavesdrops the couple, he thinks whether he needs to continue his task or let the couple be free from the regime. This scene reminded me of the Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” soliloquy. At the end of the film, Wiesler gets another job and begins a new life.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the critique from the New York Times writer is rather accurate. The beginning was slow paced, and it didn't reveal much except for Dreyman and Sieland's relationship as well the fact that there was HGW spying on them. The suspense becomes more apparent later on, when the events start to move more quickly. O. Scott also states that "even in an oppressive society, individuals are burdened with free will." Even though HGW was supposed to be the one who reports Dreyman for his suspicious acts, he decides to help him hide his illegal doings. Not only that, but he also meets with Sieland, telling her to just be herself, which causes her to go back to Dreyman instead of meeting up with Hempf. HGW is also the one who removes the typewriter from Dreyman's apartment upon receiving its location. This became a surprising turn in the plot. Another example was when Sieland identified the Spiegel article writer as Dreyman while under arrest. Though she loved Dreyman and even ended up rejecting Hempf for him, she chose her acting career over her loved one.
ReplyDeleteCynthia Chang Period 2
2. This film relates to Hamlet where the characters have to choose who to believe and what cause to support. In Hamlet, Hamlet is conflicted over killing Claudius to avenge his father’s death. Initially, he was hesitant because it would be treason to kill Claudius and he didn’t have real evidence that the ghost was telling the truth. Likewise, Weisler was shown to be conflicted over whether or not to hide Dreyman’s conspiracy. In the beginning of the movie, we see him to be a very strict person who was lecturing about interrogation, he even agrees that Dreyman is suspicious and should be placed under surveillance. However, after he realizes that the minister is abusing his power and is trying to get rid of Dreyman because he is in love with Christa-Maria. Just like when Hamlet learns that Claudius, in fact, did kill King Hamlet, and stops hesitating, Weisler also tried to protect Dreyman by making himself be the only person watching Dreyman, and writing fake reports. His commitment to Dreyman is most obviously shown at the end when he destroys the typewriter before the search team could find it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with you since I also think that Hamlet's and Weisler's situations are kind of similar. They both had to choose what to do in the situation where they were not sure.
Delete1. In the Lives of Others, I was just astonished by how Wiesler changed his view by just watching Georg's life. Through my 17 years of living, I have never seen anyone change as fast as Wiesler does. This really made me think, what if Wiesler himself thought of changing to be better and lead a better life than spying on people trying to find something bad on them just to put them in jail or worse kill them. The scene that really grasped my interest is when Georg and Christa- Maria arguing about her bad life choices. What I feel is that when Georg was telling Christa-Maria not to go to the rich guy (bad guy). Which we figure out later on that she does end up leaving to go the the rich guy. What Georg was really doing is telling Wiesler not to go back to the Stasi party (bad guy). In return caused Wiesler to advise Christa-Maria not to go back to the rich guy but instead to go home to Georg. I feel like this scene was critical to the change we see in Wiesler later on in the film.
ReplyDeleteI agree, this was the pinnacle moment for Wiesler changing his attitude about Dreyman and deciding to help him. It's interesting that in the end, Wiesler was the most faithful to Dreyman by keeping his secret.
Delete2. The similarity between "The Life of Others" and Hamlet is that the character Gerd Wiesler is similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Wiesler spies on Georg and Christa-Maria to gain information that he can send to his bosses. Likewise in Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are also succumbed by Claudius to spy on Hamlet and find out more about his craziness and bring back information to him. In addition, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are similar to Christa-Maria. Christa-Maria and Georg are in a relationship but she breaks his trust and betrays him by telling the Stasi officers the location of the typewriter. In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were childhood friends with Hamlet but breaks their friendship and trust with Hamlet to work under Claudius. - Eileen Yang
ReplyDeleteI agree! I didn't realize the different relationships or analyze them in m comment. I didn't think about Hamlet's friend but I do agree on the betrayal. It brought out different sides of people and both friendships ended up death but it's interesting to see that connection.
DeleteOut of curiosity, rebellion, sympathy, and loneliness, Gerd Wiesler invests his life into the lives of those who are supposed to be his enemy. Wiesler becomes the one with the power to decide the fates of Georg Dreyman and his friends but sacrifices himself to protect the one man who he was supposed to destroy. Through his surveillance of Dreyman, Wiesler becomes emotionally invested in “the lives of others,” using their lives as a form of escapism from his plain and lonely life working for the Stasi. Through watching and listening to everything that happens in Dreyman’s house, Wiesler becomes more empathetic: helping Christa-Maria Sieland stay with Dreyman, crying to Dreyman’s piano during his mourning of the suicide of Albert Jerska, and hiding the typewriter that could have destroyed Wiesler’s life and helped his status within the Stasi. Personally, I feel as though the film successfully showed the importance of empathy and human connection through the portrayal of each character in this film.
ReplyDelete1.)
ReplyDeleteAs the movie starts, to me personally Wiesler seemed like a very cruel and strict captain. Especially with his suspicions towards Dreyman and his punctuality issues with the other guy who takes over the shifts spying. I think that at the end of the film, I was very moved by the film because it was a beautiful depiction of how an individual evolves into an empathetic human being. The risks that he takes as the movie progresses shows the psychological shift in the way he processes things. Before witnessing the everyday life of Dreyman, Wiesler was very cruel. But soon he starts changing. We see this change during the scene when he is in an elevator with the little boy. The old him would have gotten the dad’s name and punished him, but the change in him causes him to hesitate and just act cool about it. I thought the character of Wiesler was very interesting. To be able to analyze what caused Wiesler to change through the film is very mind boggling.
1) The Lives Others goes deep into understanding the character Gerd Wiesler, and his character development throughout the story. In the opening scene, Gerd Wiesler is presented die hard communist who even approves the inhumane method of torture and interrogation; wheres, to the end of the film, he feels sympathy and supports Georg Dreyman, an anti-communist who wrote articles in support of the west. This one-eighty degree shift in morals takes place after several days of spying on Dreyman. He becomes closely attached to Dreyman's affairs after understanding his struggles with his lover. He intervenes in Dreyman's life several times in the hope that he can make Dreyman happier because to him at some point, seeing him happy, made him happy too.
ReplyDelete1) In this film, it was very interesting to watch how Wiesler changes over time as he spies on Dreyman and his girl friend. The most impressive scene of this film is where Wiesler cries as he listens to Dreyman's piano music. This scene shows how Wiesler starts to understand "the lives of others" and have empathy towards them. This emotional change in Wiesler eventually changes his whole life and career. This movie taught me how our lives can be changed by only looking at the others' lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sunny Park that how Wiesley changes mentally and starts thinking about the lives of others. He even checks Christa-Maria's injuries after she got hit by a truck and helps Dreyman hiding his typewriter and his crime evidence which kind of shocked me.
DeleteThe movie was great. I especially liked the character development Wiesler had. I wish we could know more as to what Wiesler thought about the situation of helping Dreyman, then again, it wouldn't be about the "lives of others". Interestingly, Christina didn't really grow as a character, she gave up Dreyman's secret for her own safety which arguably can be seen as shallow or trying to survive. I really wished Dreyman and Wiesler met and talked, but the ending was still pretty impactful.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the character arc of Christa was a little unclear. She started out literally in the bed of the State, but showed depth and a rebellious streak when she stopped meeting with the director. The film didn't focus very deeply on her viewpoint or what consequences she was expecting to face due to her action, but her willingness to end that chapter of her life showed her ready to pursue what she felt was correct despite consequences. However, her almost effortless betrayal of Dreyman seems to indicate otherwise, that she is still a pawn of the state. While this might have the effect of portraying the powerlessness of the commoner against the government, it also seems to subvert the character of Christa, which might have been resolved with a little more explanation of her feelings.
DeleteIf I were to change the film, I would have Dreyman talk to Wiesler at the end. I feel like if I were to watch Dreyman and Wiesler talk about what happened and how Wiesler tried to help Dreyman by covering his secrets from the state security, it would've been a nice ending. Instead, Wiesler see's that Dreyman has dedicated a book to him which is nice but a little less satisfactory than the two actually meeting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jiho, I also believe it would have been a better alternative to the ending.
DeleteIf I were to change the movie, I would have had the two characters meet in the end instead of the original scene where Georg sees Wiseler but then turns around and enters back into his Taxi. I believe adding the conversation between these two would have provided closure better than the traditional ending as well as adding interesting addition to the plot.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the character development, especially in Weissel was exceptional. The movie started out with Weissel teaching a class on interrogation and clip of him interrogating someone was shown. The person being interrogated has been forcefully sleep deprived and looks terrible. Weissel is instantly portrayed as a stern cold man, but as the film continues we see there is more to him than that. Weissel is a very isolated individual who takes no joy in his work despite being quite good at it. When he is ordered to survey Dreyman and his girlfriend, Weissel begins to switch sides. He realizes the cruelties of the SSR and decides to hide evidence of the couples involvement in any sort of rebellion.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I would change with the film is the ending. I felt that Georg and Gerd Wiesler should have meet in person and have even given some of the profits from the book to Wiesler since he was the one that allowed Georg's career to continue. Although it is heartwarming to see that Wiseler was recognized and appreciated, that moment would only last for a couple of moments because his entire career was ruined.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting that Wiesler shifts from spying Dreyman for Stasi to helping Dreyman to publish the terrible facts about the Communist party in the West Germany. Moreover, I am surprised that Dreyman writes a book about Wiesler and implies that he is a good man even though his actions lead to the death of Christa-Maria.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the viewpoint that O. Scott presents in his review, that the film played with its setting to build suspense in an environment that inherently limits freedom of action by showing that limitation of free will often has an opposite effect. Communist East Germany was a surveillance state, and therefore one would expect the members of its society to behave largely in a conformist manner. However, this film shows that human society is more complex than the ideals it is based upon, as one finds both great good and great evil disrupting the social machine. On one end, the Stasi and the director manifest their free will by abusing the system, using the power that they have to terrorize the populace and to pursue their own personal gain. The free will of those in the upper echelons of East German Society brings the element of suspense, as the viewer realizes that in a corrupt nation, it is the will and whim of the powerful that controls the lives of the thousands that stand to lose so much beneath their rule. And yet, despite the repressive environment, there are those who find the courage to pursue self-expression and (if covert) opposition. I find it fitting that Scott describes free will as being a “burden,” because it is often simplest to simply lay down and to conform. Dreyman and Christa, who fought and were beaten down, discovered first hand the terrors of standing up and living in suspense and uncertainty.
ReplyDelete2.
ReplyDeleteThe Lives of Others is a movie set in Germany during 1973 when they attempted to build a totalitarian country. The movie begins with a twelve interrogation of another man to get him to reveal the truth. There is another man who spies on a very successful playwright. Through some intense and personal spying by wiring his house, the man is convinced that the playwright is innocent.
The first theme that I saw that related to Hamlet was the corruption in higher power. After doing some research, this movie was meant to send a political message that a totalitarian government weakens and confuses its citizens. This reminded me of when Hamlet's country were wrongfully informed of how Old King Hamlet died and how he had to explain how he died at the end of the book.
The second theme that I saw that related to Hamlet was how people's morals were questioned. For example, the man spying realized the playwright's good intentions or when the playwright's girlfriend was forced to tell the truth. People were put in tough spots to make very influential decision.
The third theme that related to Hamlet was the dictatorship. Like Claudius, the government in Germany was aiming for all aspects of power despite how wrong it was. It was malevolent and individuals like Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus could see through the wrong.
Overall, the big overarching theme that connected both Hamlet and the movie was power. It brought many other aspects to their society but mainly evil and corruption.
1. React to any aspect of the film you want.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how they chose to close up the film. The movie closes up with Christa returning home after her confession, where she then goes to shower. Shortly after, State Security shows up at the door of Dreyman, oblivious to the fact that Gerd Weisler had already taken the typewriter. Christa runs out of the house, believing she had just set up her husband, but is hit by a truck. Weisler watches as Christa dies, leaving as Dreyman mourns. Years later, Weisler looks through records of his surveillance and finally comes across the man who saved his life.
The ending of the film was my favorite part of the film. Despite the fact that Weisler and Dreyman never met in person, Weisler felt the need to help him out, even sacrificing his high position job and his past beliefs. This didn't come out of the blue either, as we can first see his personality shift in the elevator when a boy talks about how his father doesn't like the government. He was going to ask his father's name, probably going to imprison him, but he changed his question last minute. All of this leads to a very conclusive and heart-warming ending, when Weisler sees that Dreyman acknowledges and thanks him for his work.
ReplyDelete-Jihun Moon
Overall, this was a good movie, but if I had to, I would make several changes to it.
ReplyDelete1. I would have Christa get hit by the truck, but NOT die.
2. I would have everybody in the Stasi - not just Weisler - feel empathy for Christa and Dreymon.
3. Weisler would not be forced to deliver mail for the rest of his life.