| The Lives of Others | |
|---|---|
 Original German-language poster | |
| Directed by | Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck |
| Written by | Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck |
| Produced by |
|
| Starring | |
| Cinematography | Hagen Bogdanski |
| Edited by | Patricia Rommel |
| Music by |
|
Production companies |
|
| Distributed by | Buena Vista International |
Release date |
|
Running time | 137 minutes[1] |
| Country | Germany |
| Language | German |
| Budget | $2 million[2] |
| Box office | $77.3 million[2] |
The Lives of Others (German:Das Leben der Anderen,pronounced[dasˈleːbndeːɐ̯ˈʔandəʁən]ⓘ) is a 2006German drama film written and directed byFlorian Henckel von Donnersmarck marking his feature film directorial debut. The plot is about the monitoring ofEast Berlin residents by agents of theStasi,East Germany's secret police. It starsUlrich Mühe as Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler,Ulrich Tukur as his superior Anton Grubitz,Sebastian Koch as the playwright Georg Dreyman, andMartina Gedeck as Dreyman's lover, a prominent actress named Christa-Maria Sieland.
The film was released byBuena Vista International in Germany on 23 March 2006. At the same time, the screenplay was published bySuhrkamp Verlag.The Lives of Others won theAcademy Award for Best International Feature Film. The film had earlier won sevenDeutscher Filmpreis awards—including those for best film, best director, best screenplay, best actor, and best supporting actor—after setting a new record with 11 nominations. It also won theBAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language andEuropean Film Award for Best Film, while it was nominated for theGolden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film.The Lives of Others cost US$2 million[3] and grossed more than US$77 million worldwide.[2]
Released 17 years after the fall of theBerlin Wall, marking the end of the German Democratic Republic, it was the first notable drama film about the subject after a series of comedies such asGood Bye, Lenin! andSonnenallee. This approach was widely applauded in Germany, and the film was complimented for its accurate tone despite some criticism that Wiesler's character was depicted unrealistically and with undue sympathy. The film's authenticity was considered praiseworthy given that the director grew up outside of East Germany and was 16 when the Berlin Wall fell.[4]
In 1984East Germany (GDR),StasiHauptmann Gerd Wiesler, code name HGW XX/7, is ordered by his friend and superior, Lt. Col. Anton Grubitz, to spy onplaywright Georg Dreyman, whose pro-communist politics and international recognition have so far kept the state from directly monitoring him. Dreyman's appearance as a model East German mystifies Wiesler; the playwright has no known vices or record of disloyalty or dissent at all. At the request of Minister of Culture Bruno Hempf, Wiesler and his teambug Dreyman's apartment, set up surveillance equipment, and report Dreyman's activities. Wiesler is disappointed to discover that Hempf is having Dreyman observed not for suspicions of disloyalty or dissent, but for his own lustful interest in Dreyman's girlfriend, actress Christa-Maria Sieland. After an intervention by Wiesler leads to Dreyman's discovering Hempf's coercive relationship with Sieland, he implores her not to meet Hempf again and to be true to herself. She returns to Dreyman's apartment without seeing Hempf.
Dreyman's friend Albert Jerska, ablacklistedtheatrical director, gives himsheet music forSonate vom Guten Menschen (Sonata about Good People). Shortly afterwards, Jerska hangs himself. Dreyman realises that the GDR has not published its own suicide rates since 1977, and decides to publish an article in Western media. To determine whether or not his flat is bugged, Dreyman and his friends feign a defection attempt. A sympathetic Wiesler does not report it and the conspirators believe they are safe. Since all East German typewriters are registered and identifiable, an editor of prominent West German newsweeklyDer Spiegel smuggles Dreyman aGroma Büromaschinen Kolibri, an ultra-flattypewriter, which he hides under a floorboard. It has only a red ribbon, which stains his fingers.
Dreyman publishes an anonymous article inDer Spiegel accusing the state of concealing the country's elevatedsuicide rates. The article angers the East German authorities but the Stasi cannot link it to a registered typewriter. Rejected by Sieland, Hempf orders Grubitz to arrest her. She isblackmailed into revealing Dreyman's authorship of the article, although the Stasi do not find the typewriter. Grubitz, suspicious of Wiesler, has him do the follow-upinterrogation of Sieland. Wiesler makes Sieland reveal the typewriter's location.
When the Stasi return to Dreyman's apartment, Sieland realises that Dreyman will know she betrayed him and runs into the street right in front of a passing truck. Dreyman runs after her and Sieland dies in his arms. Grubitz finds nothing beneath the floorboard; he ends the investigation with a perfunctory apology to Dreyman. Grubitz then informs Wiesler that while the investigation is over, so is Wiesler's career; his remaining years with the Stasi will be steam-opening letters for inspection in Department M, a dead-end assignment for disgraced agents. The same day,Mikhail Gorbachev is electedleader of the Soviet Union.
Two years after the fall of the wall, Hempf and Dreyman meet at a performance of Dreyman's play, each reflecting on life before and afterGerman reunification. Dreyman asks why he was never monitored by the Stasi, to which Hempf replies that he had been: "We knew everything." Dreyman finds the abandoned listening devices in his apartment and rips them from the walls.
Dreyman reviews his Stasi files at theStasi Records Agency, reading that Sieland was released just before the second search and could not have removed the typewriter. He is confused by other contradictions until, seeing a red fingerprint in the final report, he realises that the officer in charge of his surveillance – Stasi officer HGW XX/7 – had removed the typewriter from his apartment and concealed his activities, including his authorship of the suicide article. He tracks down Wiesler, who now works as a mailman, but ultimately decides not to approach him.
Two years later, Wiesler passes a bookstore window display promoting Dreyman's new novel,Sonate vom Guten Menschen ("Sonata about a Good Person"). He opens a copy of the book, discovering that it is dedicated "To HGW XX/7, in gratitude". As he buys a copy, Wiesler is asked if he would like it giftwrapped. He replies: "No, it's for me."
|
|
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's parents were both from East Germany (originally they were fromfurther east; thevon Donnersmarcks belonged toSilesian nobility but the region was transferred to Poland from Germany after World War II). He has said that, on visits there as a child before theBerlin Wall fell, he could sense the fear they had as subjects of the state.[5]
He said the idea for the film came to him when he was trying to come up with a scenario for a film class. He was listening to music and recalledMaxim Gorky's saying thatLenin's favorite piece of music wasBeethoven'sAppassionata. Gorky recounted a discussion with Lenin:
And screwing up his eyes and chuckling, [Lenin] added without mirth:But I can't listen to music often, it affects my nerves, it makes me want to say sweet nothings and pat the heads of people who, living in a filthy hell, can create such beauty. But today we mustn't pat anyone on the head or we'll get our hand bitten off; we've got to hit them on the heads, hit them without mercy, though in the ideal we are against doing any violence to people. Hm-hm—it's a hellishly difficult office!
Donnersmarck told aNew York Times reporter: "I suddenly had this image in my mind of a person sitting in a depressing room with earphones on his head and listening in to what he supposes is the enemy of the state and the enemy of his ideas, and what he is really hearing is beautiful music that touches him. I sat down and in a couple of hours had written thetreatment."[3] The screenplay was written during an extended visit to his uncle's monastery,Heiligenkreuz Abbey.[6]
Although the opening scene is set inHohenschönhausen prison (which is now the site of a memorial dedicated to the victims of Stasi oppression), the film could not be shot there becauseHubertus Knabe, the director of the memorial, refused to give Donnersmarck permission. Knabe objected to "making the Stasi man into a hero" and tried to persuade Donnersmarck to change the film. Donnersmarck citedSchindler's List as an example of such a plot development being possible. Knabe's answer: "But that is exactly the difference. There was aSchindler. There was no Wiesler."[7]
Donnersmarck teamed up with cinematographer Hagen Bogdanski to bring the story to life. Describing his inspiration for the film's Brechtian grey color palette, cinematographer Bogdanski recalls the streets of East Berlin from the period: "They were very dark. Everything was happening inside, in private".[8]
The film was received with widespread acclaim. Filmaggregate siteRotten Tomatoes reports a 92% rating, based on 149 positive reviews out of 163, and an average rating of 8.31/10. The website's critical consensus states: "Unlike more traditional spy films,The Lives of Others doesn't sacrifice character for cloak and dagger chases, and the performances (notably that by the late Ulrich Muhe) stay with you."[9] It also has a score of 89 out of 100 onMetacritic, based on 39 critics.[10]
A review inDaily Variety by Derek Elley described the film as "a superbly cast drama", which "balances the many dramatic and emotional strands between the players with poise and clarity".[11]Time magazine'sRichard Corliss named the film one of the Top 10 Movies of 2007, ranking it at #2 and praising a "poignant, unsettling thriller".[12][13]
Film criticRoger Ebert gave the film four out of four, describing it as "a powerful but quiet film, constructed of hidden thoughts and secret desires".[14]A. O. Scott, reviewing the film inThe New York Times, wrote thatLives is well-plotted, and added, "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 choose."[15]Los Angeles Times criticKenneth Turan agreed that the dramatic tension comes from being "meticulously plotted", and that "it places its key characters in high-stakes predicaments where what they are forced to wager is their talent, their very lives, even their souls". The film "convincingly demonstrates that when done right, moral and political quandaries can be the most intensely dramatic dilemmas of all".[16]
American commentatorJohn Podhoretz called the film "one of the greatest movies ever made, and certainly the best film of this decade".[17]William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote in his syndicated column that after the film was over, "I turned to my companion and said, 'I think that is the best movie I ever saw.'"[18]John J. Miller ofNational Review Online named it number one in his list of "The Best Conservative Movies" of the last 25 years.[19]
Several critics pointed to the film's subtle building up of details as one of its prime strengths. The film is built "on layers of emotional texture", wrote Stephanie Zacharek inSalon online magazine.[20] Josh Rosenblatt, writing in theAustin Chronicle called the film "a triumph of muted grandeur".[21] Lisa Schwarzbaum, writing inEntertainment Weekly, pointed out that some of the subtlety is due to the fact that its "tensest moments take place with the most minimal of action" but that the director still "conveys everything he wants us to know about choice, fear, doubt, cowardice, and heroism".[22] An article inFirst Things makes a philosophical argument in defense of Wiesler's transformation.[23] The East German dissident songwriterWolf Biermann was guardedly enthusiastic about the film, writing in a March 2006 article inDie Welt: "The political tone is authentic, I was moved by the plot. But why? Perhaps I was just won over sentimentally, because of the seductive mass of details which look like they were lifted from my own past between the total ban of my work in 1965 and denaturalisation in 1976".[24]
Anna Funder, the author of the bookStasiland, in a review forThe Guardian calledThe Lives of Others a "superb film" despite not being true to reality. She claims that it was not possible for a Stasi operative to have hidden information from superiors because Stasi employees themselves were watched and almost always operated in teams.[7]
In a 2016BBC poll, critics voted the film the 32nd greatest since 2000.[25]
According to German authorChristoph Hein, the film is loosely based on his life story. In a 2019 article, he recalls that Donnersmarck interviewed him in 2002, and that his name was mentioned in the opening credits at the premiere. In Hein's opinion, the overly dramatic events of the film bear little resemblance to his life experience, which is why he asked Donnersmarck to delete his name from the credits. In Hein's words, "the movie does not depict the 1980s in the GDR" but is a "scary tale taking place in a fantasy land, comparable to Tolkien'sMiddle-earth".[26]
The film and its principals have won numerous awards. Among the most prestigious are:
The Europe List, the largest survey on European culture established that the top three films in European culture are:
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden had the film at number one.[30]
In February 2007,Sydney Pollack andAnthony Minghella announced a deal withThe Weinstein Company to produce and direct an English-language remake ofThe Lives of Others.[31][32] Minghella died in March 2008[33] and Pollack died less than three months later.[34]
In September 2014, 43 members of the Israeli elite clandestineUnit 8200 wrote a letter to Israel's prime minister and army chief, refusing further service and claiming Israel made "no distinction between Palestinians who are and are not involved in violence" and that information collected "harms innocent people". One of these people named a viewing ofThe Lives of Others as "the transformational moment".[35][36]
The Lives of Others has been referred to in political protests following the2013 mass surveillance disclosures.[37]Daniel Ellsberg in an interview withBrad Friedman onKPFK/Pacifica Radio republished onsalon.com stressed the importance ofThe Lives of Others in light ofEdward Snowden's revelations:[38]
ELLSBERG: My knowledge of the Stasi is not very extensive, but it's largely from a movie calledThe Lives of Others, which won the Oscar for "Best Foreign Film" some years ago. Everybody should get that now. It should be reissued now. Preferably. It has subtitles. In German. But I'd like to see it dubbed so it had a wider audience. What that shows is what life can be with a government that knew as much as the Stasi did then. But if they know – and one thing they can do with that information right now – is to turn people into informants, so that the government has not only the information that people say on electronic devices, they have what they say in the bedroom, because their wife or their whoever – spouse – is an informant. As happened in the movie. That is what did happen in East Germany. And if we were to get that here, and there's the infrastructure for it right now, we will become a democratic republic in the same sense as the East German Democratic Republic.
Film critic and historianCarrie Rickey believes thatThe Lives of Others was one of two movies that influenced Snowden's actions, the other being the 1974Francis Ford Coppola filmThe Conversation, both being about wiretappers troubled by guilt.[39]
Both movies are about the morality of surveillance and the questionable reliability of information harvested – and how listeners can be duped and/or can misinterpret raw data. I would recommend these films to anyone interested in great movies that touch on the issues raised by L'Affaire Snowden.
On 25 June 2013, after revelations of collaboration between theNSA andGCHQ, British journalist and documentary makerSarfraz Manzoor tweeted that "Now would be a good time to pitch a British remake ofThe Lives of Others."[40] On 16 July 2013, American novelist and frequent cable news commentator Brad Thor stated: "At what point did the Obama administration acquire the rights to reenactThe Lives of Others?"[41]
French PresidentNicolas Sarkozy gave an interview inLe Figaro expressing his outrage over his being the target of surveillance. He drew a direct comparison to the film: "This is not a scene from that marvellous filmThe Lives of Others, about East Germany and the activities of the Stasi. It is not the case of some dictator acting against his political opponents. This is France."[42] Because of this interview, sales ofLe Figaro more than doubled.[42]
Henckel von Donnersmarck and Ulrich Mühe were successfully sued for libel for an interview in which Mühe asserted that his second wife,Jenny Gröllmann, informed the Stasi about his activities while they were East German citizens[3] through the six years of their marriage.[43] Mühe's former wife denied the claims, although 254 pages of government records detailed her activities.[20] However, Gröllmann's real-life controller later claimed he had made up many of the details in the file and that the actress had been unaware that she was speaking to a Stasi agent.[44]
Notes
It was therefore with particular interest that I recently sat down to watch The Lives of Others, this already celebrated film about the Stasi, made by a West German director who was just sixteen when the Berlin Wall came down.
Bibliography
