Christa-Maria tells Wiesler that he is a good man. Jerska gives Dreymann
Sonata for a Good Man. Dreymann dedicates Sonata for a Good Man to Wiesler.
What is "a good man" in The Lives of Others? Was it possible to be a good man
in East Berlin? Do we need a different language/vocabulary to describe these
men? Does this film have a hero? Was it possible to be heroic in East Berlin?
Does art have the power to make us good people? The director offers us plenty
of evidence that artists are more sensitive, more compassionate, more
empathetic. But he also offers us plenty of evidence that art does not make us
better people. Before the Second World War, Germans were considered the most
cultured people on the planet. Why are people who worship art capable of
barbaric behavior? Why do we study art? Does it have the power to change us?
Is Hempf correct? Are people incapable of change?
Why is Martina Gedeck given the name Christa-Maria? Why is her code name,
Marta? Does the film have a religious dimension?
Why does Wiesler attempt to help Dreymann? Is he in love with Dreymann? Is he
in love with Christa? Does Christa need to be sacrificed for the sake of
Dreymann?
This is Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's first film. It is an homage to many, many classic films he has loved -- It's a Wonderful Life, Casablanca, The Third Man, The Red Shoes, Rome: Open City, Fahrenheit 451, etc. What does this film have to say about film? Do you see the director making reference to any films you have seen?
1 out of every 6 people in East Germany worked for the Stasi in some capacity. People knew that they could not necessarily trust their parents, siblings, children, friends. Do we have the ability to understand what such lack of privacy would mean? Do we need to alter our expectations of each of the characters in this film when we consider this statistic? We are raised in this country to believe that we have choices. Do any of the people in this movie have choices?
Heroism in this movie and East Germany as a whole is something completely different than we might think of as Americans. For us, it’s someone who beats the odds, who goes above and beyond in order to take down the enemy. They may have fear, but they overcome it; they overcome their own selfish wants (security) for the greater good. Well, none of that happened in The Lives of Others. The closest thing that happens is Dreymann publishing his article in Der Spiegel, but even that was done completely in secret, published under a pseudonym, and really didn’t change the scope of the GDR in the least. So is there a hero in The Lives of Others? Or is this just a glimpse of life, showing but not resolving a problem that is seen, heard, felt around every corner, but rarely spoken of for fear of the Stasi?
The Stasi is a very important thing in distinguishing what it is to be a hero in America as compared to the GDR. Yes, for the record, I do believe there is a hero in this movie, and he comes from the Stasi itself. Wiesler’s position makes him the perfect one to be the hero in the movie. Basically omniscient, he can leave hints or intervene where he sees fit in order to save Christa-Maria and Dreymann, but he cannot do enough. In the end, as we see, all their lives are a little bit to a lot worse: Christa-Maria is dead, Dreymann is plagued with remorse and an overwhelming sense of loss, and Wiesler is now opening envelopes with a steam machine. If this is the end, how can Wiesler be the hero?
This ending, while possibly frustrating and a bit sad, perfectly illustrates to me the situation that was living in the GDR. Despite all of Wiesler’s work, his effort from the inside to help Dreymann and Christa slip through the cracks, not only are they worse off but he is as well. This gets at the futility of the sense of heroics in the GDR and, furthermore, why I believe the heroes of the GDR were very different than here. The Stasi, as we saw, knew just about everything. Not only were they aware of things, but they would take action about them. If they heard of dissention, it wouldn’t be long until the dissenter would vanish. This would lead to their family, friends, even casual acquaintances being put under surveillance. Because of this, people didn’t dissent; it was as simple as that. Anything that was done would have to be done with the utmost secrecy and couldn’t really have far reaching consequences at all. Therefore, people more often than not just didn’t do anything. It was this sense of futility and frustration that permeated the nation, and I think the movie did an excellent job portraying it.
I wanted to continue with our discussion about how as an audience, we could not possibly conceive how difficult living in East Germany, or any Communist country, was under the Soviet Union. Based on my knowledge concerning the collapse of the Soviet Union and having specifically researched the political tensions within each country, I find this film to be an extremely accurate portrayal of life in East Germany. The Soviet Union used paranoia as a strategy to ensure compliance and reduce the likelihood of rebellion from the citizenry. Every government employed hundreds of thousands of people to act as spies; they pitted family members, friends, and neighbors against one another because no one could be sure who was working for the secret police. This is evident when Christa-Maria’s first inclination after being brought into the police station is to offer her services as a spy, since her fame puts her in constant contact with many other noteworthy people. The stress and fear of potentially losing her reputation, going to jail, or to be a victim of torture, ultimately pushes her to betray the love of her life. The root of her deception stems from the raw and psychological terror the Communist regime was able to exert, forcing people to act in ways beyond their own control. The moment Christa-Maria has to look Dreyman in the eyes, she runs to kill herself, finding no other way to redeem her weakness in succumbing to the pressure of the interrogation. The film convinces the audience of Christa-Maria’s genuine love for Dreyman, so that we will not judge but feel empathy for this character and the sensitivity of her situation. The severity of the political situation, coupled with the violence and suppression exercised by the government, is also the reason I feel Wiesler intentionally compromising Operation Lazlo was entirely believable. Wiesler is a model example of how citizens should interact with government; he exemplifies strict efficiency, organization, intellect, and feels an undying amount of devotion towards his country and fellow comrades. We assume this is Wiesler’s actual personality and that he will not change during the movie; it is not until he tunes into the life of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, that we realize we have made a mistake. Wiesler lacked sincere human interaction, but the moment he is exposed to human intimacy, love, and honest friendship, he changes entirely. Wiesler begins to believe why you cannot sacrifice to what is “right” by the moral human compassion people are supposed to exchange, to what is “right” by government. This character is the film’s attempt to convey that at the very minimum, people are meant to feel for one another and institutions that deny these feelings will eventually annihilate society.
Something I noticed while watching this film was theme of dehumanization of all the characters throughout. Starting in the opening moments of the film, the man being interrogated is reduced solely to a textbook case to be studied in colleges, with the instructor giving a play by play and generalizing all prisoners and their actions. To the Stasi, the people of East Germany are nothing more than numbers, as demonstrated by the scene where Dreyman rattles off the country’s statistics, until they try to branch out of East Germany, when they then become pawns to be tortured and manipulated to send a message and become material for a student’s doctorate. Weisler, as the instructor in the beginning, obviously buys into this idea that the people of this country didn’t matter individually until they disobeyed. However, once he begins to spy on Dreyman and Christa-Maria, Weisler begins to understand that the people he interrogates and manipulates can’t be condensed into files and reports, which is when he begins to cover for Dreyman so that he could finish the illegal article. Despite this revelation, this theme of dehumanization still continues until the end of the film. It is most prevalent in the scene where Dreyman finally looks into his file, and shows his frustration and exasperation at having been reduced to a name in a report.
This film plays with the idea of goodness in people. This idea of what is good and what is bad shows up frequently throughout the movie. Here’s the problem though: goodness is entirely subjective. What may be good for one person may not be good for another. Likewise, what one views as being good may not be viewed the same way from a different perspective. This is what makes it difficult to define what is “good” in The Lives of Others. For example, some people might say that Wiesler’s actions were good throughout the film: Wiesler decides to undermine his boss and ultimately lets Dreymann get away with writing the suicide article. But that leads to the interrogation of Christa-Maria, which eventually leads to Christa-Maria’s death. And who is that good for? Christa-Maria dies, Dreymann loses his love, and ultimately Wiesler loses his job. I mean what about that is good? Perhaps a better term to use in this film is “noble” because it seems as though the characters are trying to do what they think is right, but I do not think that means that their actions are necessarily good.
Along those lines, this film seems to try to make a connection between art and goodness. Honestly, I think that that notion is ridiculous. I do not think that art makes a person inherently good. We study art to study creativity. Yes, it has the potential to change who we are. Well really it has the power to change the way we think, which is in essence who we are. I believe that art can have a profound effect on a person’s life, but I do not believe that it automatically makes a person “good” because, again, I believe that being good is defined subjectively, either by individuals or groups of individuals.
Finally, throughout the film, there are many references to biblical and religious ideas. The most blatant example of this is in Christa-Maria’s name. I mean it can’t really get much closer to saying Christ-Mary, can it? Perhaps, then, this film is trying to also make the relationship between being religious and being good, like with art above. Again, I would make the case the religion does not necessarily make you good. Additionally, the use of the codename Marta seems to indicate to me that she is being represented as a martyr, much like martyrdom is presented in the Bible. From this perspective, Christa-Maria dies out of persecution, similar to Jesus in the Bible. I think that this film definitely has a religious dimension, but I am not yet sure what the significance of this is.
In East Germany, the people were divided. Being that 1 out of 6 were associated with the Stasi, directed to spy on the other 5 out of 6 (who, don’t forget, were their friends, colleagues, neighbors, even family members), no one could trust anyone. More importantly, it seems, no one could truly understand the other side. Just like the wall separating them from what was outside, there was a wall inside East Germany, inside themselves. This “wall” references the gap between the Stasi and the German people. It would take a special person to bridge that gap.
At what point did Wiesler decide to help Dreyman and Christa-Marie? I wish I could pinpoint the moment. Maybe if I watched the movie another time or two I could find it. At one point, Wiesler singlehandedly started spying on Dreyman and sought to destroy his life. The next, Wiesler goes so far to jeopardize his own career to prevent them from seeing pain. “The Lives of Others” feels like a much more human and real version of “1984,” where “Big Brother” instead sympathizes with and befriends Winston Smith. But is it because Wiesler is a good man? I think it’s more likely because Wiesler thought Dreyman was a good man… and because Wiesler was jealous of what he had. Wiesler, whose character is shown through the prostitute scene and his otherwise lack of a social life or family, seems achingly, bitterly lonely and unfulfilled with his life choices.
Until the moment Dreyman’s friend commits suicide, Dreyman is a fine citizen, even in the eyes of the Stasi. He works, he plays, he makes love to his beautiful girlfriend Christa-Marie, and he avoids trouble. This is the life Wiesler seems so jealous of, and, holding them up on a pedestal, Wiesler becomes personally invested in their success. They seem to be the only people who can surprise and intrigue him anymore, and he sees to it (or at least tries to) that they won’t take the fall. He believes in them, he believes in their ultimate goodness.
However, to get to that point, Wiesler had to do something hard—get to know them. He had to get inside their lives, their minds, and their hearts. Wiesler and Dreyman- although, notice, they never interact- reached a general grasp of each other, and, by the movie’s completion, a mutual, silent respect. At the end, when Dreyman dedicates the book to Wiesler’s quiet salvation, it goes full circle, defying the never-ending law of the separation of “us” and “them.” I think it holds an important lesson for us all.
I thought this film was astounding. I’m going to be honest, usually I hate movies that involve subtitles, because typically I am to concentrated on reading that I don’t get eh full effect of the movie. However, I believe that this was one of the best movies of the semester. I was at the end of my seat for the entire movie and really didn’t want to get up for a mid-movie bathroom break.
To answer one of the reflection questions, I really do believe that there in an opportunity to be a nice person in East Berlin. I believe deep down Weisler was a good man. I think he was one of those guys that got taken down the wrong path by the wrong people and was roped into the wrong job. I thought that it was interesting that at the end he really did care about the couple he was spying throughout the entire movie. He moved the typewriter which then ended the case, or was it the death of Christa Maria that ended the case? Any way I think some people did go the extra mile to be good.
I think this film has many heroes. I think in a way Weisler was a hero, even though he was taking down the couple. He did remove the typewriter that did say Dreyman. I also think that Dreyman is also a hero in the way that he writes a story to send out his thanks basically to Weisler for saving him from being sent to prison.
Another interesting dimension to the movie is how Weisler was very interested in Dreyman and Christa. I almost feel like he was lacking in so many personal relationships that he was kind of living through. I believe that Weisler was a very interesting character all throughout the movie and all is actions can call for much discussion
Overall I thought this film was amazing and would recommend it to anyone.
As discussed in class, it is very difficult for us as viewers to be able to actually conceive life in East Germany at this time, which sets us at a disadvantage in understanding many of the implications this film brings about. The extreme degradation and division of people is something we read about, hear about, and can recognize its inherent flaws, but fail to actually feel because we, as Penn State students in this modern age, have had the luxury of avoiding these feelings on such a mass scale. Reality was flipped sideways, and people were lost on who to trust, how to feel, and how to identify themselves. The Stasi and the victims may as well have been residents of separate planets because people refused to make attempts to see the other side and understand the flaws of such harsh separation; it would take extreme courage to face this daunting task of defying authoritative rulings. Weisler displays the human capacity for justice and courage in this film. Dreyman and Christa-Maria could easily have remained figures of foreign backgrounds and beliefs, as automatic enemies and threats. Yet, Weisler looked upon their life through eyes of a lonely and seemingly empty soul and idealized what they had. At first, he saw this superficial relationship as a source of jealousy and lust; that’s what he wanted. Weisler had nothing to claim for himself other than a lack of individuality and understanding of his internal self. Yet, as he used the courage to break past the defined barrier of them vs. me, he established an actual relationship with Dreyman and Christa-Maria. No longer were they associated with the label “communist” or even “enemy,” but, rather, were people stuck in the same sort of messy world of superficial definitions and labels as Weisler. Weisler sees beyond orders and missions and see a man with feelings, emotions, and purpose, and that is something he respects. The intense magnificence of this story is limited through our eyes because the courage and wonderful display of humanity cannot fully be recognized through a perspective that has not seen the complete lack of individual thought of most other Stasi officers. We have not experienced the rarity and wonder of those who find it in themselves to break patterns and make their own decisions. This is what lies at the heart of the film for me.
I think Wiesler was in love with Dreymann. I don't think it was a necessarily romantic love, but it was sure enough love. I would not have risked my career, and potentially life, for someone I had not loved. I think we were supposed to see that Wiesler loved Dreymann, and we are meant to love him as well. I know I loved him as soon as I saw him. I don't know if it's his baby face or just his mannerisms. I just wanted to protect this man and ensure nothing bad would ever happen to him. I think he was the embodiment of the theory that artists are more sensitive, compassionate and empathetic. He was the only character in the movie without guile. His long, boyish hair, his baggy clothes (always in neutral, soothing colors,) and his innocence all made the audience completely fall for him. He really was the only innocent person in this movie, and I think the audience agreed with Wiesler that we needed to protect that last spark of hope from destruction.
Dreymann's innocence is displayed to us by his unfounded trust in the people around him. In this world where your own wife would betray you out of fear, Dreymann never for a moment dreamed that Crista-Maria, any of his friends, or even Hempf would betray him. (Hempf to the extent that he wouldn't bug his apartment.) How stunned he is when his friend commits suicide or when he discovers his girlfriend emerging from Hempf's car further illustrate this innocence. His face showed that he really wasn't expecting either in the slightest. I think bravery is a sign of innocence and naivety as well. When he agreed to type the report, that was surely driven by grief, but I can't help but believe that if he truly was aware of and had thought about all of the consequences he would have backed out.
Dreymann's character never did a malicious thing throughout the movie. When he found out about Crista-Maria and Hempf, many men would have been calling her terrible names, smacking her around and kicking her out of his life. Georg just begs her to stay with him and to give up the security of Hempf. He has tears in his eyes because he truly believes that their love would be enough. He has a little boy kind of quality to him established by his belief in love, his friends and simply, his inability to tie a tie.
I don't think that art can permanently change what a person's DNA and upbringing have created, but I think it can alter it and polish it. For example, I have the temperament of a cartoon Napoleon, but there are a few songs that I can listen to when I feel myself getting fired up that will instantly cool me down. Art can inspire us or make us feel safe as well. I have 2 busts on my desk--Jack Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson. When I'm trying to do things I may feel afraid to do, I look to Jack and all of the tough calls he had to make. When I'm needing inspiration for an essay, I take down the Jefferson bust and pass it back and forth between my hands as I pace. It normally comes to me rather quickly after that. I also have a canvas painting on my dorm wall of a little girl dressed like a princess looking out of her bedroom window to the woods below. It reminds me of my childhood and my safe hideaway, and I always feel instantly soothed upon viewing it. Art will not alter the human condition, but it can aid us in becoming better people.
I think Wiesler was in love with Dreymann. I don't think it was a necessarily romantic love, but it was sure enough love. I would not have risked my career, and potentially life, for someone I had not loved. I think we were supposed to see that Wiesler loved Dreymann, and we are meant to love him as well. I know I loved him as soon as I saw him. I don't know if it's his baby face or just his mannerisms. I just wanted to protect this man and ensure nothing bad would ever happen to him. I think he was the embodiment of the theory that artists are more sensitive, compassionate and empathetic. He was the only character in the movie without guile. His long, boyish hair, his baggy clothes (always in neutral, soothing colors,) and his innocence all made the audience completely fall for him. He really was the only innocent person in this movie, and I think the audience agreed with Wiesler that we needed to protect that last spark of hope from destruction.
Dreymann's innocence is displayed to us by his unfounded trust in the people around him. In this world where your own wife would betray you out of fear, Dreymann never for a moment dreamed that Crista-Maria, any of his friends, or even Hempf would betray him. (Hempf to the extent that he wouldn't bug his apartment.) How stunned he is when his friend commits suicide or when he discovers his girlfriend emerging from Hempf's car further illustrate this innocence. His face showed that he really wasn't expecting either in the slightest. I think bravery is a sign of innocence and naivety as well. When he agreed to type the report, that was surely driven by grief, but I can't help but believe that if he truly was aware of and had thought about all of the consequences he would have backed out.
Dreymann's character never did a malicious thing throughout the movie. When he found out about Crista-Maria and Hempf, many men would have been calling her terrible names, smacking her around and kicking her out of his life. Georg just begs her to stay with him and to give up the security of Hempf. He has tears in his eyes because he truly believes that their love would be enough. He has a little boy kind of quality to him established by his belief in love, his friends and simply, his inability to tie a tie.
I don't think that art can permanently change what a person's DNA and upbringing have created, but I think it can alter it and polish it. For example, I have the temperament of a cartoon Napoleon, but there are a few songs that I can listen to when I feel myself getting fired up that will instantly cool me down. Art can inspire us or make us feel safe as well. I have 2 busts on my desk--Jack Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson. When I'm trying to do things I may feel afraid to do, I look to Jack and all of the tough calls he had to make. When I'm needing inspiration for an essay, I take down the Jefferson bust and pass it back and forth between my hands as I pace. It normally comes to me rather quickly after that. I also have a canvas painting on my dorm wall of a little girl dressed like a princess looking out of her bedroom window to the woods below. It reminds me of my childhood and my safe hideaway, and I always feel instantly soothed upon viewing it. Art will not alter the human condition, but it can aid us in becoming better people.
Introspection is one of the most powerful effects of von Donnersmarck’s film "The Lives of Others." Can a man become a hero after being a villain for so long? Did Wiesler’s merciful actions toward Dreyman and Christa-Maria negate the acts of allegiance he once performed for the Soviet government? Do they even nullify the spying he was doing to help them?
Near the end of the movie, Wiesler is a hero. He has the satisfaction of seeing his name immortalized in Dreyman’s newest bestseller. Perhaps his two years steaming letters were some form of superficial penance, or maybe the death of his love from afar, Christa Marie. But does he really deserve to be painted as the movie’s hero? Was he even bad to begin with?
After the film, we discussed how it would feel to have looked in your book and learn that your closest friends, and even your family, had been spying on you. What would you do? I cannot begin to imagine the betrayal, pain, and sadness I would feel. But does this make those who acted on the regime’s behalf “guilty?”
While I cannot imagine being betrayed by those who are supposed to love me most, having to live under constant my life scrutiny and fear is also unfathomable. Wiesler proves that those who did tried constantly to escape. He lied, he drank, and he invited prostitutes to his apartment, all to no avail. Defying his bosses and spying on others was the only thing that provided hope and release. In fact, he grew so obsessed that it became an addiction. It had been so long since he had been control of anything that he took total control of the lives of others.
And what’s to say we wouldn’t do the same? In America, sometimes we take rights for granted, because we have always had them. We expect them. But what would happen if they were suddenly taken away? Would we do anything to get them back, and to maintain them once we had them again?
This film brings into question between lines of good and evil, and I think really shows that there is no one finite line between good and evil, rather that everybody has a little bit of both, that no one is pure evil and no one is pure good. I like the question about does art make us more of a good person. As a non-artistic person I would like to say that it does not. Art plays an important role in this movie, but can we see that the artists are purely good people. I can not see how it can be argued to make this point. Artists do possess certain character traits that are not see in all, but not all of them are innately good. In terms of the question does this movie have a hero, I would say no. It certainly has people in it who do heroic deeds, but just because one does heroic deeds from time to time does not make them a hero. A hero to me is someone that can be counted on at all times to do the right things and will also possess certain character traits that none of the characters possessed consistently throughout the movie.
The Lives of the Others
Every exposure I have had to events like the Holocaust and East German Occupation has been limited to books, news articles, and films. I have been extremely fortunate in the so far 21 years of my life to be gifted with an extraordinary family and education filled with safety and love. I have never felt real danger or fear like people living through times where they could not even trust their own family.
One thing that really bothered me about the content of the film is that ultimate power that the minister had. No one person should ever be given ultimate power of an operation. For example, the one person who had the ultimate decision could decide if people would be put on the black list or remain in prison for their entire lives. In a way, the operation of the stasi almost gave everyone this power. Like we discussed in class, their were people’s neighbors who turned them in, even their own siblings. Everyone had a chance to say another was guilty, but their was never a voice for innocence. The only safe choice in this movie was to wait out the storm. As we can see, however, there are many characters that did not want to “keep calm and carry” on if you will.
As the viewers of the film, we see some chances within the movie change throughout the film. The character that experiences the most change to his previous life is Wiesler. His entire existence and purpose surrounded his work. He did not have a colorful life at home and cannot even get the prostitute to want to stay. The grayness of his life changes when he starts wiretapping Dreymann’s apartment, a sudden burst of color starts to change him. The first indication of this is when he decides to put the phone down when he was thinking of alerting the border guard of Harry’s potential escape. I think Wiesler changes so much because of Christa- Maria. As we know from Wieslers’s work accomplishments, he has wiretapped many people and had no problem sending them to jail. I think he has a fascination with helping CM, but is not in love with her. He wants to see her survive and I think this is because the Minister’s actions toward CM. We saw in the playhouse that he had very little interest in chatting with the Minister at the end of the show and his disdain only grows as he realizes he is raping CM. He even risks being seen to allow Dreyman to catch CM. I think Wiesler starts to see the corruption within the system of the Stasi. We can see that is he a person who is very by the book, but even this goes against the rules for him.
The Lives of the Others
Every exposure I have had to events like the Holocaust and East German Occupation has been limited to books, news articles, and films. I have been extremely fortunate in the so far 21 years of my life to be gifted with an extraordinary family and education filled with safety and love. I have never felt real danger or fear like people living through times where they could not even trust their own family.
One thing that really bothered me about the content of the film is that ultimate power that the minister had. No one person should ever be given ultimate power of an operation. For example, the one person who had the ultimate decision could decide if people would be put on the black list or remain in prison for their entire lives. In a way, the operation of the stasi almost gave everyone this power. Like we discussed in class, their were people’s neighbors who turned them in, even their own siblings. Everyone had a chance to say another was guilty, but their was never a voice for innocence. The only safe choice in this movie was to wait out the storm. As we can see, however, there are many characters that did not want to “keep calm and carry” on if you will.
As the viewers of the film, we see some chances within the movie change throughout the film. The character that experiences the most change to his previous life is Wiesler. His entire existence and purpose surrounded his work. He did not have a colorful life at home and cannot even get the prostitute to want to stay. The grayness of his life changes when he starts wiretapping Dreymann’s apartment, a sudden burst of color starts to change him. The first indication of this is when he decides to put the phone down when he was thinking of alerting the border guard of Harry’s potential escape. I think Wiesler changes so much because of Christa- Maria. As we know from Wieslers’s work accomplishments, he has wiretapped many people and had no problem sending them to jail. I think he has a fascination with helping CM, but is not in love with her. He wants to see her survive and I think this is because the Minister’s actions toward CM. We saw in the playhouse that he had very little interest in chatting with the Minister at the end of the show and his disdain only grows as he realizes he is raping CM. He even risks being seen to allow Dreyman to catch CM. I think Wiesler starts to see the corruption within the system of the Stasi. We can see that is he a person who is very by the book, but even this goes against the rules for him.
What a freaking film. I loved it. I was familiar with it from my German class days (I knew it as Das Leben der Andern) but I had never watched it. I was really blown away. One of the finest examples of a change in heart on film that I have ever seen.
This film reminded me so much of The Crying Game's discussion of natures and what it means to be who you truly are. Wiesler, from the outset, is a scorpion. He preys on fear, collects people's weakness, and lives his life on a schedule of intimidation. How is it that he can change so drastically? I am always battling in my mind back and forth as to whether people can really change...more often than not, I believe that people do not change. But this film makes me want to reconsider that idea so badly. When Dreymann plays "Sonata for a Good Man," I cried. I cried because Wiesler cried. To me, it was almost like a song that was written to match Wiesler's soul...a mechanism to unlock who he truly is inside. A key. That is so beautiful. And it is not only a change we see in him, but a change that saves a life. A change that changes lives.
I also loved the scene where Dreymann asks the minister why his house wasn't bugged, to which the minister smugly replies that it had been the whole time, and they knew everything that had happened. What a pretentious bastard...he knows nothing. Dreymann's confusion is amazing cinema. You feel such love and appreciation for Wiesler, a man who has been a horrible monster for much of his life. And then the bit at the end with the typewriter ink smeared onto the report...my heart stopped. I really just loved this film, and it's made me think a lot about change.
Yes, art can have the ability to make us better people. It provides an outlet from the existential terrors of existence. It allows us to express our deepest thoughts and emotions. However, I believe that it may be in human nature to sin and to do bad things, therefore art may only change us under extreme circumstances.
This can be exemplified in the scene when Dreymann plays "Sonata for a Good Man" when we see a change in Wiesler and this change leads him to contribute to the lives of others. But does he change because of art? One can argue that his real character merely was revealed. He was always a good person but his character was corrupted by his work.
I also believe that love, like art, can change people.
Something I find most interesting about this film is the dehumanization of people. We see this from the very beginning of the film. In the opening scene of the film I find it interesting that the man being interrogated is being treated as a number, just another people that this man has to see in his day. He even refers to him as his prison number. The man interrogating him shows absolutely no emotion.
The cuts between the interrogation and the lecture are quite startling. Again, the man interrogating him shows no emotion, while it is clear that the man being interrogated is breaking down. The setting of the later interrogation is dark and dismal. It is clear that this man has been interrogated for quite some time and his mind is beginning to crumble. While this is all happening, the interrogator remains cold and robotic.
Though this man seems cold and almost inhuman, it is apparent that he knows exactly what he is doing and keeping his cold demeanor is part of that process. I find it interesting that everybody in the lecture is unmoving and cold.
However later in the film the interrogator, Wiesler, reveals a softer more caring side of himself, while still maintaining his appearance. This film plays with the idea of good and evil. Who is really good and who is really evil? Can you be one or is everybody a little bit of both? I don't know if I would use the word evil, maybe bad instead, but I feel that everybody, not just the characters in The Lives of Others has good and bad in them, whether they show it or not. This film shows the good and bad of people in the different aspects of their lives, and how they try to keep them separate. But naturally, when things get messy those two are going to collide.