As I understood it the conversion is supposed to be more or less without motivation and unexplainable. That is to say, I understood the film as expressing ideas of mysticism. He wrote it in a monastery after all.

Gerd Wiesler's motivation arises from the fact that he falls in love with Christa and is repulsed when he learns that he is a part to a conspiracy that is intended to imprison her boyfriend so that she can be raped at will by the commissar of culture. His goal at all times is to save her. He fails. If you didn't understand this I can see why you didn't like the movie.

I thought it was overall very good, though I admit the turnaround is unlikely -- but then pretty much all drama is unlikely, and I do think there was some emotional truth there.

On the other hand, I am surprised by just how successful the movie is (it's still playing at one Irvine multiplex arthouse, outlasting Richard Gere in "Hoax). I did find it a bit enervating -- but then I saw it as part of the second half of a double-bill screening with "Letters from Iwo Jima", so it was a lot of somberish, deep-dish movie watching for one night.

I will say that I thought "Pan's Labyrinth" was immensely better, but then I think that's probably an out-and-out masterpiece.

Don't you mean Clive Davis?

It's a little late to be reviewing this movie - wasn't it out last summer - but I found it very interesting and worth the price of a movie ticket (vice renting). Yes, it focused on the lives of three people, but the overall massive system of internal spying was always present. To me it spoke measures of the East German system and the struggles of people under it to play their roles. Yeah it wasn't the Bourne Identity but it wasn't meant to be.

Kevin, I felt it was precisely about "the constant, day-to-day oppression of living in a state where your every action was potentially under surveillance". The movie, although quite stylized and focussed on just three people, detailed the crippling effects that state had on people of differing temperaments. Sometimes I think that American entertainment, even at its best, has left us with limited abilities to see past the literal.

I thought that part of the buzz behind this movie was simply the exposition of the STASI activities, not any particular artistic qualities that the film may or may not have had.

I had to watch it in the original German (which was tough going given my pidgin German), but I thought it was tremendously effective in its understated way. The ending, which I grant was a wee bit Hollywood-trite, brought a tear to my eye.
On the other hand, the German woman I watched it with thought it OK, but not as good as did I.

I thought it was pretty good. I saw the conversion of the Stasi agent coming about because he was an idealist but he came to realize his life was so empty vis-a-vis the playwright's (the Stasi agent's sterile apartment and his cold encounter with the prostitute versus the lovemaking between the actress and the playwright). Also, getting access to banned texts like Bertol Brecht and the Spiegel article about suicides made him change his views. And of course his job becoming spying on someone so his boss could rape the actress instead of protecting socialism caused him to change.

Overall a pretty good movie, especially for a first time director.

I loved The Lives of Others and would wholeheartedly recommend it. Personally, I think we are joining Wiesler's conversion in media res. This is someone whose belief in the system has been cracking for some time, but who has been able to maintain a facade that has helped him function. The events of the film finally destroy that facade.

Notice how in the first two scenes in the film--where he interrogates the prisoner and where he teaches the class-- we see him essentially through other people's eyes; we only see the performance he puts on. We never really see him from an omniscient standpoint until the scene where we have a long close up of his face as he watches the play. There, for the first time, we see that this is really a person who is experiencing inner conflict.

Yes, the pacing is slow, but I think the film rewards patience.

There was a lot to like in the picture. I thought the Stasi methodology was very well articulated (There was that warning to the neighbor and those file machines at the end!!). But, alas, Kevin, the point was the playwright *didn't* know he was under surveilance. He did not outwit anybody, only took precautions his friends told him to take.

I agree, you never see why the Stasi guy decides to protect the couple. And there wasn't one genuinely sympathetic character (well, maybe the old director), or for that matter one light-hearted moment or flash of humor, in the whole thing.

I enjoyed The Lives of Others, but Pan's Labyrinth was far better to my taste. Pan's Labyrinth was more deserving of the Academy Award.

The former movie portrayed the horrors of Communism and the latter showed the horrors of fascism. Those are worthwhile themes. However, it would be nice if movie makers were more eager to take on today's problems. E.g., the mistreatment of women in Islamic cultures would make an excellent theme.

I think both you and Clive miss a big point of the film: The ever-present suspense created by the indeterminancy of who and who is not part of the government surveillance apparatus.

Simple mistakes, individual weaknesses, little white lies, and feints all create doubt in the watchers and and watched.

As for the pacing, well, I echo anm's ending comment.

I think the reason this film resonated with critics is that it portrayed a possible future for America.

Ah Kevin.

You're wrong. /Das Leben der Anderen/ was an excellent movie.

To what Bloix said about motivation, I would add that Wiesler was also portrayed as a bureaucrat with a literary soul, and so was fascinated with his subject even before he discovered what was really going on. His motivations were complex and subtle, and if you had to spend most of your energy reading the subtitles instead of viewing the movie, you probably missed alot. Ulrich Muehe was a target of the Stasi himself, and had more than a passing familiarity with the role he played.

Oh, and a Brit being unimpressed with a German movie is about as surprising as a Republican pundit being unimpressed with the Dem candidates for POTUS.

That being said, I agree with Bob above that /Pan's Labyrinth/ is a masterpiece and should have won the Oscar for best foreign film.

However, it would be nice if movie makers were more eager to take on today's problems.

They did; it's called Children of Men. A thought-provoking metaphor for our times.

Not having a single sympathetic character is GOOD thing, IMHO. This was not a movie about heroes, it was about people who are flawed. They do good and bad things. As far as I could tell, the playwrights play sucked before and after the fall, but that doesn't excuse his treatment at the hands of the East German gov't. Likewise, the filthy graffiti covered mess that was the new East Germany shows that "freedom" isn't all for the good. Some subtle and complex layers in this film.

The almost smile on the face of the ex-stasti agent saved the ending from being Hollywood trite.

From JAG's comment:
>I agree, you never see why the Stasi guy decides to protect the couple.
I thought it was due to his admiration of the actress (the playwrite's conviction and imprisonment would have allowed the Culture minister to move in on her; the rationale for the apartment bugging in the first place) and/or Brecht's writing getting to him (a very brief scene, and one would need to understand Brecht's main lines of writing).

You and Clive must be nearly the only ones who weren't impressed. It was the best movie I've seen in years. Brilliant. Of course, I went in having not read any reviews of the movie. I'm sure if I'd gone in expecting an absolute masterpiece, I would have been less impressed. It's all about expectations.

Read Julian Sanchez. Parts of it are that Wiesler is losing faith in the regime that he serves (e.g. when he realizes why he's been set on Dreyman), recognizing how he & the regime destroy people's lives for no good reason (see, e.g., his conversation with the boy with the ball), and wishing that he had Dreyman's life (which involves recognizing the value of the lives that are being destroyed and the pointlessness of his own life; see how he appreciates art & Dreyman's girlfriend).

Kevin, I love your blog, but I really couldn't disagree with you more on this one. To say there was no serious motivation for Weisel's transformation makes me think we saw two very different movies.

I think Old Hat gets it right. Once we see Wiesler alone we begin to recognize the emptyness in his life. He is not the conniving and devious appartchik that he appears as in early scenes. He's a guy who lives in a depressing apt and has sex with prostitutes. Eavesdropping on the playwrite and his girlfriend allows him to see another, more cosmopolitan side of life and ceratinly another side of patriotic socialism. What is so striking about the playwright is that he is not some contrived character - he's a true communist and patriot. He believes in socialism, which I think is what begins to drive Weisel's transformation. He's surrounded by an overambitious hack and a sex-crazed minister who talk about socialism, but in the end appear to believe none of it. The playwright on the other hand does seem to believe -- and is clearly torn by his loyalty to his blacklisted friends and his socialist belief. It seems fairly clear to me that this is what is driving Weisel's evolution.

Also, the story is about all the characters who are under surveillance. They all must serve some larger master, from the actress who is forced to have brutal sex so she can act, the neighbor who must keep quiet so her daughter stays in school, even Weisel's hack boss who must keep his Minister happy so he can keep his job. They are all corrupted by the system and in some roundabout way, all under surveillance. It's just more direct for some than others.

In particular, at the end when Weisel buys the book and speaks English to the man at the bookstore it is the first "free" thing we see him do in the entire movie. He says "this is for me," because it is the first time in the movie where he does something truly for himself, with no fear of the possible repurcussions of his actions.

I thought is was a gorgeous, brilliant movie.

Btw, Kevin, if you want to see a good film with lotsa action and twists and nothing too subtle, check out Verhoeven's latest, /Zwartboek/, which also stars Sebastian Koch.

Kevin, I thought the movie was fantastic. I spent some time behind the wall back in the day, and the movie made my skin crawl by recreating the atmosphere of fear that prevailed. The movie did, in fact, demonstrate the "constant, day to day" oppression" you could feel. Also, I think you're being obtuse to say that "there was simply no serious motivation provided for" the transformation of Weisler's character. I think that's bull; his disillusionment in being made complicit in the rape of the actress and the bogus investigation of her lover the playwright is made perfectly clear.

Instead of debating whether The Lives of Others was awesome or simply great, I suggest we turn our attention to the question of how one of the worst movies ever, Babel, was even nominated for an Oscar in the first place!

Thank you Disputo - it's not merely that he has fallen in love with Christa. It's that he genuinely believes that she's a "great artist." If the picture has a weakness- and I think it does- it is that we are repeatedly told that Christa as a great artist but we never see it. The stage sequence that we do see is pretty turgid.

In order to believe wholeheartedly in Weisler's transformation it would be necessary for us to feel what he feels when he sees Christa on-stage. We don't feel it, and that is why many filmgoers find that Weisler's actions lack motivation.

Good points, Bloix and MC.

I think it's also worth remembering that Wiesler himself sets things in motion through his own arrogance, by taking on a case simply because he wants to prove that he can dig up dirt on anyone, no matter how clean. His own hubris mirrors that of the state, the realization of which provokes the small transformation that the movie is about.

I loved the movie. As I left the cinema I said to my companion, "this is what movies should be like". That movie could have been made about any country and about any time because it was about universal values: the small decisions we make everyday that lead to the sum of a life. To me it didn't matter that they made the film about the Stasi because it could have been about South Africa, about Rwanda, about Yugoslavia, about Iraq, about Ireland, and yes, even about Republicans in the this current administration - caught up in a system, and gradually realizing what was REALLY going on, and the gradual evolution from living with blinders to seeing the utter corruption at work.

I was moved by the story despite the slightly trite ending. Loved it.

PS - another weakness is that East Germany was far more repressive than is shown. A playwright and an actress could not have reached the heights that these two reached without having been thoroughly compromised on their way up. The Stasi made you inform on your friends before you got to be a person with any influence. Either you worked with the Stasi or you cleaned toilets.

Having grown up in a country with secret police, I really thought this movie gave a great sense of what life is like in such a country.

I'm surprised at people not getting why the main character goes good. It's as plain as day to me -- he gets smitten by the actress's character. Besides, he was a Stasi man because he truly believed, in the most naive way, that communism was the way to go and he wanted to deal with anyone who wanted to defeat it. As he starts to realize how his beliefs aren't shared by his superiors, he starts to realize it's all a farce. So, fueled by his sympathies for the actress and knowing the main character had no grand motives for writing articles to be published in the west, his better qualities surface and he decides to act on it. Ultimately, this lonely man (remember the scene with the prostitute and his desire for her to stay just a little longer) succunds to love. Maybe not the country and western song variation of love, but love nevertheless.

There's so much more to this... his eavesdropping on artists, not poliically motivated people, opened his eyes. Remember he took the book from the writers house to read nad we see him reading it in amazement?

I thought why he turned "good" was so clearly expressed.

I won't comment on "The Lives Of Others" itself, as I haven't seen it yet. However, Kevin, you may want to check out Anna Funder's book "Stasiland," which precisely deals with the things you want to know about. Funder is an Australian journalist who interviewed people who lived under the Stasi's thumb during its existence as well as former Stasi officers. The stories she uncover can make your skin crawl. A girl gets interrogated about each and every line of her love letters by a Stasi officer in search of dodgy or disloyal thoughts. A teacher of Stasi informant handlers explains that pay for informants wasn't horribly handsome. Yet given the proportion of informants to citizens, it's astounding how many there were.

Funder's book came out a few years ago from Granta, but its stories feel timeless.

My take is that the criticisms lead to missing the forest through the trees. Sure there were significant issues worthy of criticism in isolated tress, yet the forest remains not only intact, but still powerful.

It was a movie that felt a lot like a play. High realism did not appear to be the intent.

As for the change of heart of the Stasi Agent, this did seem personally less than hugely convincing but other commentors add plausible interpretations.

To add to them is the possibility that he never really had a true change of heart. At the outset he is an instructor and not a field agent. In the classroom the idealized version of the State could still be held up. In the field it did not hold up. Its at least plausible this was the first time that his experience directly conflicted with the States narrative or alternatively this was the first time he was preparred to see it.

The people he was spying on demonstrated through words and deeds that they were not enemies of the state. They were not dishonest. He could see this.

Another key turning point would appear to be the music and subsequent book title. The suicide and piano had a direct impact on his perspective.

You can still view that he never betrayed the State, rather at least in this particular instance the State was wrong.

Btw, I wanted to say that my favorite scene is toward the end, when Wiesler has been banished to a life of opening mail in a Stasi basement somewhere (along with others, including the kid who made the anti-Honecker joke), when the radio reports that the wall has fallen, Wiesler nonchalantly gets up without a word and leaves, to the shock of his fellow workers. He is the only one who immediately understands what that means, mostly because that is the news he has been expecting and waiting for, because he knew like few others that the system simply could not stand.

Muehe played that, as he did most of the movie, with beautiful understatement.

Bloix, they might have slightly underplayed it, but the film did show the couple as being deeply compromised. He had turned away some of his closest friends and was stuck writing the same agitprop over and over again, and was miserable about it. And look at the way the actress dociley (is that a word?) submits to the gov't man--like a trauma victim who thinks she has no options.

BTW, remember the way Monica L. spilled everything to Ken Starr, even though a decent lawyer should have told her the specific sexual details were irrelevant to a perjury case? Don't know why this reminds me of that; maybe because of the Politburo DC became in the last six years.

What Old Hat and MC said.

It's difficult, especially for an audience weaned on Hollywood flicks, to see what's going on in Weisler's head because he hides behind a cold expression. Very German. We're supposed to learn what kind of man he is by observing the way he interacts with others.

My take is that Weisler believes in "socialism", but he is already disillusioned with the realities of East Germany as the movie opens. We can see this, I think, in the way he portrays the act of interrogation as one of catching people who try to acquire benefits that others don't have, and of forcing liars to tell the truth... rather than mouthing party boilerplate. He also personally refuses the benefits available to senior party members. His line in the cafeteria is "Socialism has to start somewhere." Additionally, as others have noted, he appears to genuinely appreciate the fine arts.

He then sees, clearly, how the Party officials seize benefits for themselves and abuse their power. And he also sees how the playwright is risking his neck not for profit, but because he wants to tell the TRUTH. Weisler doesn't undergo a mysterious transformation... he is simply given the opportunity to choose between his ideals and the system, and he chooses his ideals.

Gerd Wiesler's motivation is twofold. First, he is shy and lonely, and he becomes enthralled with Christa, as he seems to understand her better than her friends or even she herself do.

Second, Gard Wiesler is a Communist patriot -- he really, truly believes that if the Communist ideal were lived out, it would be good for Germany. He sees his bosses as becoming increasingly corrupt, and tries to call them on it. When that fails, he decides that the only way to maintain his loyalty to the State is to betray the bosses who are betraying the State. In that regard, there IS no change of heart on Gard's part -- he is simply moved to act by the changes all around him.

There was simply no serious motivation provided for this transformation.

On the contrary, many reasons were provided, some of them given above. His admiration for the actress, his feeling of emptiness compared to "the lives of others". Another important thing: the eavesdropper sincerely believes in communism and the DDR, but his superiors are asking him to spy on the couple out of self-interest and lust.

Yeah, I have a comment: You're a terrible film reviewer. You have bad taste and your reviews come out 8 months late.

Ok, unnecessarily harsh... but wow you're wrong. To quote but a sentence:
"I was vaguely expecting a movie that demonstrated the constant, day-to-day oppression of living in a state where your every action was potentially under surveillance, but instead it turned out to be a story about one single person who's under surveillance and is trying to outwit his watchers." It does deal with "day-to-day oppression." It does so by focusing on one single instance of such mundane surveilance! In this way the dramatic form allows viewers (well, not you I guess) to sympathize with the emotional difficulty of living in such an oppressive society. Also, the film is not at all about a "person trying to outwit his watchers." That's not the source of tension at all, because his watchers already know his secret. The tension (and development of the characters) is about loyalty to an idea, and what people do when that ideal fails them.

Excellent points, AJL.

The Stasi agent is primarily an aesthete entranced with an idea, even if it's already a failed one, and with the notion of professionalism for its own sake. That's why it matters so much when both things fail him.

I loved it. My artist writer friends loved it.

I think what you are not getting is that the communist East German govt had a genuine idealistic hold on many citizens, that wore off with the accumulation of many acts of brutality, hypocrisy, oppression, etc. Sort of like the Bush Administration.

So it is reasonable that some who worked for that govt were not unsalvageable sociopaths.

I think you are reacting with a certain anti-commie knee jerk prejudice. Also, East Germany was not the Soviet Union.

First, the movie was directed by a West German, so expecting great insights about what it was like to live in the East is a bit absurd. Secondly, Stasiland is a good book, although it is rather provincial in its perspective (that of an Australian journalist). Thirdly, it's too fucking soon to expect great films about the DDR.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Kevin,
Glad we agree. I was beginning to think I was losing my marbles. It was interesting to read the comments here - pro and con - because they're much more measured than the film reviews, by and large. I wonder why that is? I certainly think it's an interesting movie, but deeply flawed in very obvious ways.

Just to reply to the snarky commenter who thinks that a Brit can't enjoy German films. What's that about? Just for the record, two of the best films I've seen in the last couple of years were "Downfall" and "Sophie Scholl". And my wife loved "Goodbye Lenin" (which I haven't seen).

There was simply no serious motivation provided for this transformation

others have said it above, but you really couldn't be more wrong in claiming there was no motivation. if anything, there are actually too many reasons in the film. i've seen it twice and my second time i ended up in an argument with a friend about which of those things was the one that really pushed him over the edge.

wiesler was a true believer in the east german system. his transformation begins in that lunch room when he sees his boss abusing his authority by having jokes at the expense of agent trainees. at that same lunch he learns that the writer is under surveilance, not because they think he is a treat to society, but rather because a party boss wants to get his girlfriend.

shortly after that wiesler intervenes for the first time into the life of the writer when he rings the doorbell so that the writer will see his girlfriend getting out of the party boss' car. he's hoping that will screw up the party boss' plan, or perhaps end the writer's relationship with his girlfriend prematurely, thus making his surveilance unnecessary so that wiesler can go back to spying on people he thinks are real threats. his plan doesn't work, their relationship is stronger than he thought. and that leads wiesler to sympathize with them, and ultimately turn against the party.

there's a lot going on in the film. but they don't hold your hand for any of it. that makes it a great film IMHO, but it also makes it hard to follow if you miss something early on.

Alan, along with Goodbye, Lenin, check out Sun Alley, if you get the chance—a comedy set amongst slacker East Berlin teens in the early 1980s. Very funny. And also East Side Story, a documentary compilation of clips from DDR musicals. I kid you not! (Some look pretty good, in fact.)

The problem is that you have to live within proximity of a major film festival, or at least a major import video store, to have access to most of these films.

Just to reply to the snarky commenter who thinks that a Brit can't enjoy German films. What's that about? Just for the record, two of the best films I've seen in the last couple of years were "Downfall" and "Sophie Scholl". And my wife loved "Goodbye Lenin" (which I haven't seen).

I also thought that Brits enjoyed snark. I guess that I'm 0 for 2 today. :)

shortly after that wiesler intervenes for the first time into the life of the writer when he rings the doorbell so that the writer will see his girlfriend getting out of the party boss' car. he's hoping that will screw up the party boss' plan, or perhaps end the writer's relationship with his girlfriend prematurely, thus making his surveilance unnecessary so that wiesler can go back to spying on people he thinks are real threats. his plan doesn't work, their relationship is stronger than he thought. and that leads wiesler to sympathize with them, and ultimately turn against the party.

I've seen the movie three times now, but I had never viewed that scene that way. It makes a lot of sense though. Fascinating insight.

Sadly, Pan's Labyrinth had zero chance of winning. It's a fantasy film, and therefore not "important."

but instead it turned out to be a story about one single person who's under surveillance and is trying to outwit his watchers. This, to me, made it into fairly ordinary thriller material, except without much in the way of thrills.

Are you sure you actually saw the movie? The playwright doesn't know he was under surveillance until one of the very last scenes, set a few years after the main action, when the ex-party boss tells him. He never really understands how much he's actually being watched so how can it be about him outwitting his watchers? If anyone is outwitting anyone, it's Wiesler, the Stasi agent who's set to monitor him.

I didn't know much about it and ended up liking it a lot. A good movie. The New York Review of Books just published an insightful and informative piece on the movie written by Timothy Garton Ash. Some of you probably know that a few years ago he wrote a book about his experiences reading his own Stasi files and tracking down his informers. He liked the film, but with some qualifications. He also talked to Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, the writer and director of the film. The article is worth the read:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20210

"Pan's Labyrinth" wuz robbed! It was a masterpiece and left me profoundly disturbed after seeing it as only a truly great movie can.

Had you ever lived in Eastern Europe, this movie would have been much more comprehensible to you. Althought I found your 'review', to quote famous philosoper T. Cruise "glib," I admire your decision to be 'thick' in public - that's one of my worst nightmares. You are still one of my favorite bloggers, though.

This is why I get my political information from political bloggers but not my movie reviews! Kevin and Clive seem to want to see a History Channel production about life in East Germany during the 80s and before. This movie was a very good, pretty moving story about the lives of a couple of people during that time. It didn't try to be anything more, nor should it have. And how did it not demonstrate how it sucks to be constantly under surveillance? People were turning each other in. everyone was paranoid. the stasi did their research and told the woman across the hall that her daughter would get kicked out of college. how much more explicit do you need it to be?

I bet you thought "life is beautiful" should have told more about what life was like for the tens of thousands of other people in concentration camps too, huh?

ps: I love the scene with the prostitute, where she says that she knows how to get into the building because she has a lot of other clients there -- presumably other Stasi, or maybe she said that explicitly -- and when it's time to go, he wants her to stay, highlighting his loneliness, and tells her that it's already 1:30 so she probably won't make her next appointment. she says she'll be fine, which probably means she's just going to her next Stasi agent, also in the building. shows that it's not just Wiesler who's not really happy in his Stasi life.

pps: Kevin, if you want to check out a movie that really shows the day-to-day oppression of living in a police state, try "Spiderman III".

I thought the Lives of Others was the best movie of 2006 and there were a bunch of good movies last year. I thought it worked on so many levels. It was part historical, part love story, part political, part thriller. It was a timeless story. Some people are fortunate enough to love and be loved and some will always be on the outside looking in.

But most of all for me it was about why communism didn't work. There will always be people who will take advantage of the system. I think that Gerd Wiesler's Stasi agent character and the playwright were the only characters who really believed in communism. Gerd Wiesler's character came to see that his bosses epitomized what had gone wrong as they used the system for their own selfish ends. He came to see the playwright as a true champion of communism and that if there were more people like him that it could be successful. I think this is why he had the change of heart in the middle of the movie - he was a true believer in communism and saw that if it was to succeed that the country would need a lot more people like the playwright.

Kevin,

I explained the Stasi agent's conversion in my review in The American Conservative:

Wiesler embodies every Teutonic tendency, including emotional repression and obsessive-compulsive punctuality. Yet, as terrifying as his efficiency is in a bad cause, from [writer-director] von Donnersmarck's refreshingly patriotic standpoint, his stereotypically German qualities mark him as redeemable.

As Wiesler eavesdrops, he begins to sympathize with his victims. The turning point comes when the playwright learns that his despairing former director has killed himself. He sits down at his piano and plays a sonata the dead man had given him, touching the secret policeman's German soul.

Von Donnersmarck's original inspiration for his movie had been anticipated in Tom Stoppard's 1974 play Travesties, which quotes Lenin saying that when he listens to Beethoven's Appassionata sonata, he wants to "pat the heads of those people who while living in this vile hell can create such beauty," but he can't afford to indulge his love of music, however, because now is the time "to hit heads, to hit them without mercy."

Von Donnersmarck writes, "What if Lenin could have somehow been forced to listen to the Appassionata, just as he was getting ready to smash in somebody's head? … I 'saw' a picture of a man in a depressing room, with earphones on his head, expecting to hear words that go against his beloved ideology, but actually hearing a music so beautiful and so powerful that it makes him re-think (or rather: re-feel)."

I'll second (or third or fourth) what MC said above, I thought that comment was spot on! Like many non-Hollywood films, the story and meaning are conveyed in a very subtle manner and not necessarily through the plot. I think Kevin's mind has been dumbed way down by too many seasons of 24.

If you had issues with this one, Kevin, I'm thinking you should stay far away from Cache.

mhr: "The ignorance of communism by liberals is almost total."

And you are certainly the expert on total ignorance. In case you didn't notice, shit-for-brains, most of the people here liked that movie. And they are all smarter than you.

I'll fourth what Old Hat, MC, Danno said. This isn't a hollywood blockbuster where action is a substitution for plot development. It was pretty clear to me that Wiesler started having doubts about his loyalties when his boss Grubnitz sadisticly plays with the young Stasi agent who started to blurt out the Honecker joke. I thought "The Lives of Others" was one of the best film I've seen in past year.

Frankly, I've heard several people complain that Weisel's conversion was unexplained. On the other hand I was puzzled by several unexplained gaps in the plot and character motivations in "Black Book" -- which moves at a much faster pace -- but is a much less satisfying film.

Give Democrats a president and both houses of congress, including a veto-proof senate, and who knows how far liberal Democrats will take us- for our own good, of course.

Yeah, they might actually start to tap phones and data streams without a warrant, get rid of habeas corpus, enlist regular Americans to spy on and report their fellow citizens, and approve of torture as an info extraction tactic. The mind boggles.

I also thought this was a great movie. I am also surprised that Kevin and others didn't find Weisler's transformation convincing -- as others have noted more than ample reason was provided for this in the plot (though, admittedly, it is harder to imagine this happening in reality where the confluence of circumstances leading to such a transformation is unlikely to play out in such a way).

The doorbell sequence was wonderful. Weisler attempts to end the playwright's relationship with Christa and quickly end the farcical investigation by showing how Christa is two-timing him. Instead, the playwright is more emotionally available and consoling to her than he would have been if had not known of the Culture Minister's "affair" with her. So Weisler is stuck continuing with this investigation, but, more importantly, Weisler is moved by the playwright's knowledge and acceptance of Christa and her weaknesses.

What I loved about the movie was that the main characters were all so flawed and compromised; Christa, the playwright or Weisler all had unadmirable characteristics in addition to the toadying and unjustifiable compromises they made with the regime. Yet the movie was affirming of their humanity; it showed they still retained the best human impulses and we were able to understand (if not forgive) when their weaknesses proved overpowering. Was Weisler a good man? It's not at all clear and one suspects that on the whole he did more bad than good), but in regard to the playwright and Christa, he tried to do something good.

I thought the very end was perfectly done. What I had more trouble with was Christa running out and getting killed by a car (a little too cheap of a plot device). Also, I couldn't understand why the playwright left the typewriter under the floorboard (rather than getting rid of it) after he had completed his essay. These are minor concerns, though, in the context of such a satisfying movie.

European movies move at a glacial pace compared to American films. That's because Europeans have longer attention spans. They savor, we consume.

American movies share a commonality with radio. Dead air is a no-no. Every frame must be filled with sound. In many European movies, long silences are integral. To paraphrase jazzman Miles Davis, the space between the notes is music too.

That's not to say this movie is good or bad. I haven't seen it. Just making a few observations here based on some comments.

Kevin,
Agree. Further, I was bothered by being presented with a "feel-good" Stasi movie. The moment of tears while listening through the headphones was a real low point for me. And, what were we supposed to make of all the stereotyping. Meaningful intellectual-types with beards. Whew.

Meaningful intellectual-types with beards. Whew.

They had to have beards because they couldn't be openly gay....

"What I had more trouble with was Christa running out and getting killed by a car.."

She's not named Christa for nothing. Actually her name is Christa-Maria, which makes the point even more explicitly. This is not realism, much as it might appear to be.

the only Foreign language nominee that i've seen is "Water" but i'll recommend it as a fine film.

interesting to see on DVD because of the backstory explaining how they could not film in India (hindu fundamentalist near riot) so they had to re-cast (child actress had outgrown role) & move to Sri Lanka.

Caslon: not all american movies are like that. the blockbusters do go a mile a minute, but there have been plenty of wonderful slow, meandering american films in the past several years. a few favorites that come to mind are The New World and The Thin Red Line (both Terence Malick) and Men with Guns and Lone Star (john sayles)

anon and others already said it all and explained the movie better than I could.

Very good film and Kevin's reasons for not liking the film showed some obtuseness. And he wouldn't comment on it until he had some moral support for his own view? Which, naturally, fell more towards the middle -- ...wouldn't pan it as badly...!" Woo hoo! Go out on a limb, why don't you!

Each to their own.

If you want to see a great film that is way below western pace for all the right reasons, see
Ten Canoes.

There was simply no serious motivation provided for this transformation. It was almost as if the writer figured he didn't really need to bother.

Nonsense, Kevin. Wiesler was completely believable -- once you see there's a kind of idealism to him that was betrayed. He felt he was in the Stasi to keep the state safe; when it becomes clear to him he's just a handy tool to get a girl for the party boss, he's vulnerable. Remember the book Wiesler steals? That was Bertolt Brecht -- a poet and wordsmith, not some random East German hack. Wiesler reading the Brecht book he steals from the playwrite's apartment is as if O'Brien -- the Thought Police guy in 1984 -- had found a Shakespeare in Winston Smith's apartment and actually read it and was moved by it himself.

And Brecht the man merges our two main characters' experience. A Stalinist who had kept quiet in the face of evils that hit him very personally--his lover, Carola Neher, disappeared into the gulag in the 40's--he found himself in a similarly uncomfortably comfortable position in the DDR in the 1950s. He accommodated himself, but made gestures of resistance to some of the worst contradictions between ideal and reality; "Die Loesung/The Solution" is an example,

His poetry is moving, nonetheless, and sets the tone for the movie--his earlier poem (which does not figure in the movie, but could have) "An Die Nachgeborenen/To Those Born Later" sums up the guilt of those like our playwright and our Stasi operative who were unable to prevent evil from playing itself out. The film (even with the sentimental ending--how unBrechtian) serves as an apologia of a sort for those who find themselves and their ideals compromised; the difference is that our heroes were allowed some small successes in fighting their way out of their traps.

I thought it was a great movie, an opinion shared by everyone I know who has seen it.

Frankly, I sense that your problem with the movie is a desire for an American film. In the Americanized version, an evil stasi agent would torture the Wiesler's mother/sister/child in excrutiating detail, thus creating a motivation to change that everyone could understand. We also would have a few car chases to keep the pace moving.

For a great example of the americanization of film, watch the French version of Three Men and a Baby and then the Disney version.

In the Americanized version, an evil stasi agent would torture the Wiesler's mother/sister/child in excrutiating detail, thus creating a motivation to change that everyone could understand.

Not in the post-9/11 world. Kevin's beloved /24/ has changed the Hollywood standard approach toward torture so that now it is the good guy who does the torturing.

We also would have a few car chases to keep the pace moving.

How sadly true.

Just glad to dodge another bullet of boring.Mark it on the list to avoid.

Frankly, I sense that your problem with the movie is a desire for an American film. In the Americanized version, an evil stasi agent would torture the Wiesler's mother/sister/child in excrutiating detail, thus creating a motivation to change that everyone could understand. We also would have a few car chases to keep the pace moving.

Plus we'd get a sequel, "The Lives of Others II: Live Harder!" in which an enraged Dreyman, devastated by Christa's death, would wreak vengeance on the Stasi.

In the American version we'd have to have another love interest. The agent who does the alternate surveillance shift would be a woman, played by Rachel Weisz. She and Weisler would both be stand-offish at first, but they'd find ways to make their shifts overlap and find a few shared interests. while rushing to look at an unusual species of spider in the corner of the attic hideaway, they'd bump heads, look with surprise into each other's eyes, and kiss. Then they'd team up to help the playwright, and though Weisler views the young, inexperienced Weisz sheas a subordinate, she would come up with the plan to move the typewriter.

Gee. I thought it was great. Funnmy enuf - Kevin seems to think the movie doesn't show the pervasive all-encompassing nature of the spying - I think it did just the opposite. EVERY character is ALWAYS looking over their shoulder and fretting about what EVERYONE is saying. I mean, it's not even implicit - and that's not evenmentioning the incredibly efficient wiring job done on the flat, something portrayed as a totally everyday occurance. It's pretty explicit. As for the conversion: a) People actually do turn on odd things - this semi-inexplicability makes the movie MORE realistic to me. Also, I agree: he's a party guy, a believer, and then he sees that he's merely a tool that a corrupt politician is using so he can eliminate his competition and get his rocks off. If you're a dedicated aparatchik, a true believer, living in a self-referential bubble of naivete, this would rock your world.

I haven't seen Pan's Labarinth yet, but I think Other People's Lives is an 'out and out masterpiece'. Wish I'd made it!

Oh, and I totally agree about the pacing. If you've got an attention span, the pacing's fine. I love european movies 'cause they give me time to feel. Hollywood shoots everything at me with the velocity of a gun. Afraid it's hurt yer brain, K. Only one remedial solution: watch more slow films (try Ozu's films for excruciating).

I get the feeling you would have panned 'Raise the Red Lantern' as being to slow too. What a shame - almost all cinema is better'n ours...

I haven't seen Pan's Labarinth yet, but I think Other People's Lives is an 'out and out masterpiece'.

Frankly, they both deserved an Oscar.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences needs to expand their awards for foreign films or start being more proactive about nominating foreign films to the standard award categories. To continue limiting foreign films to the Best Foreign Film ghetto is becoming more and more of an egregious USAmerican vanity.

she would come up with the plan to move the typewriter.

And it wouldn't be a typewriter -- it would be an assault weapon and several hand grenades that an American CIA agent (working with the BDR) smuggled to the playwrite so that he could shoot his way past Checkpoint Charlie with Crista in tow.

The actress playing Crista, Martina Gedeck, would have to be replaced in the American version. She was born in 1961! She could be a grandmother!

Loved it. Believed in the conversion. I enjoyed Pans's Labyrinth, but felt Pan's Labyrinth was a much more conventional movie.

The movie has a soft underbelly. Georg, when he examined his file, discovered that someone with a kind change of heart had saved him. But the odds are that other people, looking up their records, discovered that neighbors and "friends" had betrayed them. I'll bet that the true stories were a lot less benevolent than the one depicted here.