In der Onlineversion des US-Magazins National Review ist schon vor einiger Zeit das Ergebnis einer Leserumfrage im Hinblick auf deren Lieblingsfilme veröffentlicht worden, und zwar aus einem dezidiert konservativen Blickwinkel, will heißen:

We do not claim that the writers, directors, producers, gaffers, and key grips involved with these films are conservative. We certainly make no such assertion about the actors. Yet the results are indisputable: Conservatives enjoy these films because they are great movies that offer compelling messages about freedom, families, patriotism, traditions, and more.

Freiheit, Familie, Vaterlandsliebe, Tradition. Schon verstanden.

Erst heute bin ich auf die Liste, nebst erläuternden Kommentaren durch wie auch immer qualifizierte Autoren gestoßen – und mich über die No. 1 (kaum) gewundert:

1. The Lives of Others (2007): “I think that this is the best movie I ever saw,” said William F. Buckley Jr. upon leaving the theater (according to his column on the film). The tale, set in East Germany in 1984, is one part romantic drama, one part political thriller. It chronicles life under a totalitarian regime as the Stasi secretly monitors the activities of a playwright who is suspected of harboring doubts about Communism. Critics showered the movie with praise and it won an Oscar for best foreign-language film (it’s in German). More Buckley: “The tension mounts to heart-stopping pitch and I felt the impulse to rush out into the street and drag passersby in to watch the story unfold.”

Das Leben der Anderen als Lieblingsmovie der Konservativen. Was steht dann wohl an der Spitze der Liberalen? Herr Lehmann? Kleine Haie? Otto-der Film? Man kann nur spekulieren…

Michael Haneke es un director alemán que hizo una peli de ultraviolencia en 1997 con clara influencia de Stanley Kubrick y Alfred Hitchcock con un reparto completamente alemán del cual sólo puedo reconocer a Ulrich Mühe quien actuó en la impecable Das Leben der Anderen en 2006.

Recientemente, están rotando la versión americana en Cinemax y al parecer lo más interesante es que el director no cambió nada, igual que la distribuidora que hasta los cortos de avances de la peli los dejó idénticos. El escenario es una casa burguesa en las afueras, rodeadas por un lago y un ambiente calmado. Es de corte psicológico y de una profundidad actoral muy fuerte. En el reparto de esta versión se encuentra Michael Pitt que ya resuena como un monstruo de la actuación, Naomi Watts en una increíble y desgarradora actuación y Tim Roth. La trama es que dos jóvenes llegan a la casa donde se hospedan Roth, Watts y su hijo y empieza una cadena de torturas psicológicas que no tiene fin durante más de doce horas.

Hablabamos con un amigo y desde que Pitt le pide unos huevos a Roth, al principio de la peli, uno se estremece con el tono en el que le responde y se crea de ahí en adelante una tensión electrizante.

Es supremamente gráfica y violenta.
Es sencilla y estremecedora.
Es entretenida pero a la vez muy tensionante.

Es una pieza de teatro impecable y definitivamente recomendada para seguir analizando, una y otra vez, ya que logra involucrar al espectador en estos juegos mentales y dejarle la conciencia dañada después de ser testigo de esta interminable tortura. No es violencia por violencia, es el espacio dejado por Kubrick en los 70’s después de su A Clockwork Orange donde se critica la sociedad, la asimilación del crimen y la violencia de forma natural en nuestras vidas y la psique de los llamados civilizados.

Sería chévere repasar la versión de 1997 y reparar en paralelo las modificaciones, los actores y el final.

Every time I talk about top 10 lists,  I always start with the  disclaimer that I know  how pointless they are.

And then I ask myself:  OK, if they are  so pointless, why do I have so much fun reading them and doing  them and sharing them?

No good answer, In fact, making lists is far from the only pointless thing I do.

Today, I am adding some new films and slightly changing the order.   It is not a 10 best list.  It is a list of my ten favorites. A  list of 10 best films  would be beyond nervy given how many films have a legitimate claim to inclusion.

But it seems perfectly fair to make a list of ten favorites since they are, in fact,  only my favorites.

My favorites have stayed the same for over a year.  But for the last few months I have been mulling over “No Country for Old Men”  and “The Lives of Others.” (Now I can really hear you saying: This guy need a life! Who has time to mull anything over?)

Seriously, I want to make some changes to my list.  But according to ground rules that some friends of mine and I set up many years ago in a UCLA dorm room, I have to remove one film for each one I add.  I posted my last 10 favorite about a year ago. Here is my new one along with a list of contenders.

Comments welcome. Lists welcome. Ridicule welcome.

My Ten Favorite Films as of November 15, 2009

1. Dekalog

2. Godfather 1/Godfather 2

3.  Salesman

4. The Lives of Others

5. Amarcord

6.  Goodfellas

7  No Country for Old Men

8  Fargo

9. Rear Window

10 Night and Fog

__________________________________

Other Contenders (not in order)

Midnight Cowboy

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Au Revoir les Enfants

Shop on Main Street  (1965)

It’s a Wonderful Life

Jeux interdits

Come and See

Smile

Atlantic City

Three Kings

Das Boot

The General

Paris, Texas

Shoah

Invaders from Mars

Strangers on a Train

The Graduate

The French Connection

Double Indemnity

Les Enfants du Paradis

Les Diaboliques

Psycho

Le Salaire de la peur

Sunset Boulevard

The Exiles

The Last Laugh

Hotel Terminus

Happiness

The Third Man

M

The Marriage of Maria Braun

The Lives of Others won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Foreign Film

When The Lives of Others came out a little over two years ago, I was on top of it. I was in London at the time, where the film was being released ahead of release in the United States. What great happenstance – a movie that was just up my alley, in German, that I would get to see exclusively before my peers! But I couldn’t find anyone to go with me, and stupidly put it on the backburner, when I should have just marched down to the cinema and seen by myself. When I got back to the U.S., I downloaded a German DVD quality version, since I didn’t need the subtitles (and it wasn’t out with English subs yet), and fully intended to watch it. And then I didn’t.

You see, I have to be in a certain mood for German films, specifically to go into “German mode,” and switch my brain over to the part that can hone in on the idiomatic phrasing, the particular German cadence (not harsh at all, if you’re used to it) and settle in for, generally, a depressing time. Germans seem to only make two kinds of films – depressing, historical epics about the darkest times in modern history, and ridiculous comic farces that attempt to court the German audience away from dubbed Hollywood fare. Only the former ever gets exported.

And, specifically, The Lives of Others covers a topic to which I am particularly personally tied: life in East Germany, and the emotional wreckage left behind by the Stasi. It follows a Stasi agent, Wiesler, formerly a brass-tacks interrogator and now a teacher, who takes on an assignment that intrigues him – wiretapping playwright Georg Dreyman and his actress girlfriend Christa-Maria Sieland, to make sure he is not pro-Western (and if he is, to ban his works, or worse). As he listens in on their life, he comes to care deeply for them, and then protect them from a system that wishes to do them harm. I knew I’d love it. But I also knew it would be an intense two hours of my life.

Then The Lives of Others was nominated for and then won Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, but it had been pushed so far onto my back burner, that it got lost, and forgotten. I was no longer on a film kick, I was a TV girl, so it languished on my hard drive for the last two years. Until this weekend. The 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall pushed me headlong right into a perfect German mood, and suddenly I desperately wanted to watch a moody, Teutonic film. So I finally watched The Lives of Others. And it was precisely what I was had expected: an artful film, with complex, deep emotions, and a poetic, cathartic ending.

It was a bit of a slow-starter, though. I tried subtitles first, worried I was just too rusty for such serious fare, but found them really horribly done, and distracting (I don’t think they’re the hard-coded ones that come with the DVD; they felt like a crappy job done by someone not well versed in German to English translation). Once I’d turned them off, it was easier to become engrossed in the story. But, that said, the story isn’t particularly action-driven. There’s a lot of exposition and character development, and in grand European tradition (and unlike Hollywood), they don’t spell things out for you. While it eventually becomes apparent that Wiesler is seeing the error in his ways, so to speak, there’s no aha moment. If you don’t like slow-cooker dramas, it’s not for you. I can definitely see some people finding it boring. Plus, if you don’t have any knowledge of East Germany, its history and the Stasi, while the emotional hook of the story should be enough, you may lose some of the subtlety — I was definitely filling in a lot of the gaps with my own knowledge.

The parts add up to an emotional whole, though, and the acting is top-notch. Ulrich Muehe does an incredible job as Wiesler, considering his character spends the majority of the action listening to others’ conversations, and has many scenes where he doesn’t speak at all.  Sebastian Koch and Martina Gedeck lend Dreyman and Sieland fantastic layers, making it easy to see how Wiesler would be won over by them, as well. It has a moving ending, as well, though it is again very non-Hollywood, and almost anti-climatic. But it is oh-so-satisfying. The last ten minutes were by far my favorite, in fact, as they speak to the East Germany that I knew, and the one the particularly fascinates me: the one that came after it all came tumbling down. I won’t spoil it exactly, but how Dreyman reacts upon reading his Stasi file was not what I expected. It’s refreshing to not be able to predict the ending of such a film.

So I feel silly for not having watched The Lives of Others before, but am glad I was in the right mental space for it. Had I not been, I don’t know if the slow start would have kept my attention. If you like history, and character-driven dramas, I recommend it. It’s the most high-profile German film depicting life in the East, and it’s nice to see a dense German film that isn’t about World War II. Plus, there’s something to be said for finding a dim ray of light, even a fictional one, in the darkness of such a murky ethical period.

Happy 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall! Here’s a report in German about the celebrations, including gigantic decorated dominoes lined up in Berlin to commemorate the fall of the wall.
Video of Berlin Wall celebrations
You can read an article in English about the domino wall.

I was in eighth grade at the time the wall fell, and remember watching Tom Brokaw with the news on TV. My mother was astounded at the news and couldn’t believe it. Even though I didn’t quite understand the ramifications then, I knew it was an historical event of huge import. Once I was in high school, and learned more about the Cold War, Communism and the Eastern Bloc, only then did I start to understand the significance.

Here are some stories related to the fall of the wall that I like to share with my students.

In 1993, my dear friend Janet was in Germany as an exchange student for a few weeks. During her visit, she traveled to Berlin and was able to hack off a piece of the wall. She gave it to me, and I’ve treasured this unassuming bit of grey concrete ever since. Not only do I value my bit of the wall for its historical significance, but it’s also made for a great classroom aid. The piece I have is about the size of an apple. Doing a quick search online, I could probably sell it for about $200 if I really wanted. (Not for sale!)

In June 1995, just a few years after the wall fell, I traveled to Berlin with some of my host siblings. One of my host sisters was studying medicine in Berlin. To save money, my host sister rented an apartment in East Berlin.

The apartment had originally been owned by an elderly couple. They had lived at least since the war, and possibly earlier than that. The wife had passed on in the early nineties, after her husband had died. Essentially the apartment was in its original state. It was on a Soviet-style, drab-looking street, with very little greenery. The buildings were built of red brick, and the streets and sidewalks were paved with greystone.

The apartment only had a Kachelofen or masonry heater for heat. It’s a cost effective way to provide heat, especially in a smaller space like that. My host sister didn’t have to pay rent for the first few months she lived in the apartment, provided she did renovations. She removed a chandelier from the 1950’s. Only later did she discover the exact same chandelier in one of the museums in Berlin, realizing it was a fine piece of artwork from the time period. While we were visiting, we helped my host sister pull up the front hall vinyl flooring. Underneath the flooring, we found several aluminum coins from the DDR period, and also two 20 Mark notes.

I only have some of the above coins, not a full set. Perhaps I should look into getting a full set of coins, for my own personal interest, historical interest, and for my future German classes.

I have two of the 20 Mark notes.

Here’s a picture of all the DDR Bank notes, excluding the 500 Mark note:

DDR, by the way, is the German term for East Germany. It stands for: Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or the GDR – German Democratic Republic. I am so used to referring to East Germany as the “ehmalige DDR”, I sometimes forget that a non-German speaker wouldn’t know what I mean by DDR. Ehmalig means former.

Anyway, when we discovered this old DDR money underneath the vinyl flooring, I was bewitched by it. My imagination invented wild stories as to why this couple had stashed about 45 Marks under their hallway flooring. Perhaps it was just an extra stash of money, or maybe, just maybe, they were saving up to flee the DDR! You can imagine the stories that swirled in my mind. My host sister was totally uninterested in the money, as were my other host siblings. They gladly gave it to me, partially amused by my interest in something they saw as worthless. I still have the bank notes and coins, and loved showing them off to my students. The reverse side of the 20-Mark note has a picture of school children gleefully heading to school, in order to learn about being a good citizen of the DDR.

On the same trip to Berlin, we spent a day in Potsdam. I would like to go back and see how it has changed since the reunification of Germany. At the time, a lot of construction and renovation was happening in Potsdam, to help it regain its former status as an important historical city. I was struck by the stark difference between the beautiful historic homes and the castle Schloß Sanssouci, and the Soviet-era buildings that often incorporated propagandist artwork, elevating the status of the humble worker.

When I started teaching German, most of my students were born after the fall of the wall. It’s always interesting to see their reactions. Some of the them are true history nuts and know a lot already about the Berlin wall. But most of my students never gave much thought to what life would have been like living in a divided city, or in a communist country during the Cold War. In my classroom, we could see a major road from the windows. I had my students imagine that the local government decided to erect a huge wall in the middle of that road. This worked pretty well as a tool to help students start thinking about what a divided city would be like. I then told my students that if they had friends or family on the opposite side of the wall, they would never be allowed to visit them, unless they got special permission. And, of course, they had to imagine that there was a no-man’s land, heavily guarded by the military. Once my students started thinking more and more about the difficulties such a wall posed, they began to understand what faced the citizens in Berlin and in the DDR.

There have been some excellent movies in recent years highlighting this time period. The movie Good Bye, Lenin! (or click here for the IMDB synopsis) is about a woman who is in a coma during the fall of the wall. When she reawakens, eight months later, her son attempts to hide the fact that her beloved-DDR is no more.

Another movie I’ve shown to my students is called Sonnenallee, which I don’t believe is available in English, unfortunately. It’s based on a book about Sonnenallee street, which was divided in two because of the wall. This movie takes place during the seventies, when Rock ‘N Roll was more or less forbidden in the DDR. It’s a humorous view of a teenager, his friends and his family and how they live behind the wall.

And finally, the fabulous movie The Lives of Others details what happens to a DDR Stasi officer when he becomes more and more interested in the lives of two stars he is spying on.

I am sure there are other films about this time period I am not thinking of; feel free to add your suggestions in the comments. Even though films are fiction, ultimately, I think the stories and situations helped my students understand the serious nature of the Cold War time period, and the role the DDR played in the politics of the time.

Ab A2/Deutsch

Womit setzt ihr den 9. November in der deutschen Geschichte in Verbindung?

-       Mit dem Mauerfall  von Berlin 1989?

-       Mit der Kristallnacht 1938?

-        Mit 1923, als Hitler versuchte die Macht an sich zu reissen?

-       Mit dem Tag, an dem die Monarchie zur Weimarer Republik wurde und der Kaiser Wilhelm II abdanken musste.

Und nun zum oben erwähnten Film. Zuerst einen Videoausschnitt und dann eine Uebung.

In welcher Reihenfolge ergeben die Abschnitte einen sinnvollen Text? Tragen Sie die Reihenfolge in die Kästchen ein.

Då har man äntligen ätit för första gången idag och det blev sushi, hämtat från Berga’s Sushi & Café (Dang Sushi Cafe) där vi hade rabattkuponger, betala en för två. Tack vare kupongerna fick jag 16 bitar för 70kr, helt underbart. Tjejen som är vegetarian fick ta en 8 bitars med veg. alternativ istället, då de inte ville ändra på kupongen. Så nu är  man tillräckligt mätt ett tag, kanske blir någon macka eller snacks till filmen ikväll. Das Leben der Anderen (De andras liv) går på tvåan ikväll, så det blir till att se den.

Ein außerordentliche Film-Das leben der anderen

Thriller, drama, dar si film politic mai bun decat cele mai multe mizerii scoase de americani…

Die Sonate vom Guten Menschen-Danke Du

Un film de nota zwantzig ce merita vazut…Un film recomandat pentru tinerii care nu stiu si nici nu vor sa stie nimic despre viata de atunci.

-რას აკეთებდით 28 სექტემბერს? გაიმეორეთ, რას აკეთებდით 28 სექტემბერს! კიდევ მოყევით, რას აკეთებდით ამ დღეს?
ჩვენ შეგვიძლია დაგაკავოთ უბრალოდ მაშინაც, თუკი არაფერს აკეთებდით, თუკი ბავშვები გაასეირნეთ, ანდა ძველ მეგობართან ერთად უსმენდით მუსიკას. ჩვენ შეგვიძლია სკეპტიცისმისთვის დაგაკავოთ, ანდა იმისთვის, რომ თქვენი მეზობელი თავისუფალ ქვეყანაში გაფრინდა.
ნუ გაგიკვირდებათ, თუ თქვენ სოციალისრურ ქვეყანაში, თუნდაც საბჭოთა გერმანიაში გიწევთ ცხოვრება, სრულიად შესაძლებელია თქვენი ცხოვრებით კიდევ ვინმე ცხოვრობდეს.

ფლორიან ჰენკელ ფონ დონერსმარკი გერმანელი რეჟისორია და სცენარისტია, რომელმაც “სხვების ცხოვრება” გადაიღო. ფილმი აღმოსავლეთ გერმანიაში განვითარებულ მოვლენებზე. ბერლინის კედელზე, სოციალისტურ დიქტატურასა და უშიშროების აგენტებზე, ადამიანურ გრძნობებზე და უგრძნობლობაზე. საბოლოოდ კი ძალიან ადამიანური ფილმი, რომელმაც საუკეთესო უცხოური ფილმის ნომინაციაში ოსკარის ქანდაკება და გამარჯვება მოიპოვა 2007 წელს.
ფილმის სიუჟეტი ორი მთავარი პერსონაჟის ირგვლივ ვითარდება.
გეორგ დრაიმანი გერმანელი დრამატურგია, ის არ იზიარებს სოციალისტურ იდეოლოგიას, მისი მეგობრები დისიდენტები არიან. გეორგი პოლიტიკაში არ ერევა, მას ჰყავს მეგობარი ქალი, რომელთანაც ცხოვრობს და აკეთებს საკუთარ საქმეს. მაგრამ კრისტა-მარია მინისტრის რჩეული გახდა, ამიტომ საჭიროა მისი თავიდან მოშორება. ის ხომ არ ასხამს ხოტბას კომუნისტურ იდეოლოგიას? ე.ი. ის ხალხის მტერია..
ჰერდ ვაისნერი აღმოსავლეთ გერმანიის საიდუმლო პოლიციის კაპიტანია, მას ევალება უთვალთვალოს დრაიმანს. ის ტიპიური საბჭოთა მოხელეა, სანამ.. სანამ დრაიმანის ცხოვრებით დაიწყებს ცხოვრებას.
შემდეგ ყველაფერი იცვლება, მაგრამ მე არ ვაპირებ და ვერც შევძლებ ყველა იმ ემოციის გადმოცემას, რასაც ვაისნერი განიცდის, ეს დონერსმარკს და მიუზს უკეთ გამოუვიდათ ფილმში. მე არც ამაზე მეტის მოყოლას ვაპირებ, რადგან ვფიქრობ აღარ იქნება ყურება საინტერესო. მაგრამ მოვლენები ნამდვილად საინტერესოდ ვითარდება. ფინალი კი მოულოდნელი და დაუვიწყარია.
მოკლედ, თუ დაგაინტერესათ, შეგიძლიათ გადმოწეროთ gol.ge-დან, თუ არა, უბრალოდ გააგრძელოთ თქვენი საქმე.
ესეც თრეილერი

“Acknowledgement for Mr. HGW XX/7″

by Mr Moss

Es ist vorbei.
Ich bin sehr glücklich.

Zur Feier des Tages:
Ein kleiner Einblick in das Leben der anderen, der gleichzeitig verdeutlicht, warum ich mit dem Wies’ngetümmel samt dirndlverschnittragender Bunnyhäschen und gemächtschwingender Volltrunkener am Hoftor nicht so recht warm zu werden vermag.

Beim Weg um die Wies’n, zwei männliche Minderjährige:

“Das war so geil, ich schwör’s Dir. Da drehst du dich so, ja, voll schnell, und dann geht’s so hoch. Un’ ich so (würgendes Geräusch), un’ das dreht sich so, un’ dann – hab’ ich gekotzt!”

“Nee, echt jetzt? Du hast echt gekotzt?”

“Voll gekotzt.”

“Geil.”

(Sind das eigentlich schon “die kleinen Freuden des Alltags”, ja?)

The sky, as Sam frequently pointed out to me, was the bluest blue I had ever seen. There is no other way to describe it. Every day, the sky looked as if it were filled in on Microsoft Paint. A deep, flat, unwavering blue. The buildings were often so equally pristine and deep in color, despite having a certain age, the world started feeling simulated in its absolute postcard perfection. Like a world made of Legos. Certain colors are so startlingly clear, so bright, almost blinding – that there is something of an acid flashback painted across the city’s façade. My first thought for anyone intending to go there: Before you do anything else, look up at that sky.

My Berlin adventure began when a shaggy blond with wide glossy blue eyes and an Adidas obsession sat next to me on the plane and taught me how to shape the guttural sounds of the names of train stations in my mouth. He bought me a ticket and set me on the S-bahn away from the long walkway out of the Schoenefeld Airport -  the name translates to  “Beauty Field.” I find it interesting that a tiny spot covered in asphalt where giant tubes of aluminum and steel is graced with such a name. I found over time that Germans treat their spaces with a degree of sweetness and personal investment I’ve seen in few other cities or cultures.

 Having landed rather late at night, I was concerned about the safety of the trains but found them well lit, well organized, and full of crusty drunk Italian Communists taking pictures and being lewd. (Go figure. It doesn’t matter where you go.) I also discovered very quickly that everyone below forty or so speaks perfect English. The accent is always distinctly British or distinctly American, but there’s no real explanation as to why.

“Do you speak English?” I asked several people through my time there, usually in hopes of getting directions. Either the disposition immediately darkened, followed by a rough dismissal and a broken “Only German!” as if to tell me, “No, I don’t speak English, you arrogant American jerk,” or they’d look at me as if I were insane and say slowly, “Yeaah…” as if I had asked them whether or not the sky were blue. Sam tells me that the Berliner attitude toward Americans is either bitchy judgment, or great fascination, but usually nothing in between.

Berliner Dom

In two and half days, Sam and I managed to pack my trip with all the essentials of a Berlin visit. We went up into the Berliner Dom, on Museum Island, and found ourselves popping in and out of narrow stairwells and climbing endless winding staircases to end up looking over a gorgeous view of the city. The Fernsehturm, or TV tower stretched up into the sky, and a bungee jumper plunged into the air off the top of the Hotel Park Inn, only minutes after Sam informed me that we could watch bungee jumping in Alexanderplatz. On one side of the cathedral, we found that an enormous heart was mowed into the grass. This was one of the many instances that fed the growing realization that Berlin is a city with high self esteem, and brimming, in a way, with love.

Berlin Love

In a fairly avant-garde move, the Berlin Wall’s usual appearance, preserved as it has been since it came down was totally revamped in celebration of the 20^th anniversary of its fall. Every few panels was commissioned to an artist. Everything from delicate, sophisticated surrealism to kindergarten handprints grace the wall. Aptly, the area is referred to as the East Side Gallery.

Through our walks through the city, seeing the Reichstag, the Chancellor’s office, the library, the Brandenburg Bridge, the Holocaust Memorial, the gardens and fountains around the Engelbecken basin, there were posters of big red hearts. “Allah Loves You,” some claimed. Others, “Jesus Loves You,” “I love you,” and “I am You.” There were hearts everywhere, entirely unironic it seemed. With every passing moment the city left me increasingly charmed.

Legos.

When we weren’t running about the city, stuffing our faces or dancing the night away in Matrix-like basements of plants, we hung about their large drafty apartment, designed like a loop along which each room lies, and talked about the history of Berlin, our bizarre stage in life as a generation in this moment in history, and true to form, coupled our babbling with wine and delicious German beer. Bryan and Sam buttressed their history briefs with a screening of Das Leben Der Anderen, which immediately gave immense depth to the organization and culture I’d witnessed during my travels.

My favorite

It’s fairly obvious I’m really going to miss that girl. But my god am I going to miss that sky. I said so to a thirty-something woman who was trying to give me fliers for the giant marionette show in Alexanderplatz, and she gave me my last giant hug goodbye and assured me the city would miss me right back. In a British accent.

- TriCon

by Nico Kaiser

In der U-Bahn, ein älteres Ehepaar.

Sie: “Jetzt hast du ja doch die Hose an!”
Er: (Brummeln)
Sie: “Ich hab’ dir extra eine andere hingelegt, warum ziehst du trotzdem die Hose an?”
Er: (Brummeln)
Sie: “Die ist doch dreckig!”
Er: (Brummeln)
Sie: “NATÜRLICH ist die dreckig!”
Er: “Die ist NICHT dreckig!”
Sie: “Doch, die ist dreckig! Steh mal auf!”
Er: “Ich steh doch hier nicht auf!”
Sie: “Die ist dreckig! Ich hab’ dir extra eine andere hingelegt!”
Er: (Brummeln)
Sie: (Resigniert-vorwurfsvoller Seufzer)

Man ist nicht objektiv, wenn man zu einer “Minderheit” gehört. Man kann vielleicht auch nicht klar denken, wenn man sich angegriffen fühlt. Wenn Menschen, die man gut kennt und schätzt, einfach so über einen Kamm geschoren werden, über sie gelacht und mit dem Finger auf sie gezeigt wird. Born in G.D.R. Das werde ich nie verhehlen. Es ist keine Auszeichnung, keine Errungenschaft, aber auch nichts, für was ich mich schäme.

Ich gebe zu, ich gerate in Verzückung, wenn ich im Kaufland “Tempolinsen” oder “Bambina-Kokos” entdecke. Ostalgisch? Vielleicht ein wenig. Weil es nicht so einfach war, über Nacht eine ganz neue Identität anzunehmen. Weil auf einmal alles falsch schien, was vorher kaum in Frage gestellt wurde. Wie auch, von einer unreifen 13-jährigen.

Ich bin heilfroh, das alles so gekommen ist, wie es ist, ich hätte niemals den Beruf lernen können, der mir heute soviel bedeutet und hätte weniges von dem, was mir heute selbstverständlich ist, erleben können. Trotzdem war es ein gewaltsamer Schubs, ein großer Stolperer in eine komplett neue Welt und viele haben diesen Schluckauf nie ganz wegstecken können.

Warum zeigt man dann jetzt mit Fingern auf Alte, die unpolitisch geworden sind, weil sie erfahren mußten, das Idealismus nichts zählt und die resigniert haben, bei aussterbenden Städten und Perspektivlosigkeit.

Warum zetert man, über die Doofheit der jungen Sachsen und Thüringer, weil dort die NPD Stimmen gekriegt hat. Natürlich ist das  besorgniserregend, aber müßte man sich nicht fragen WIESO?, Könnte es nicht ein ohnmächtiges Protestwählen sein, weil man sich alleingelassen fühlt und händeringend nach Sündenböcken sucht, weil man sich sein eigenes Scheitern nicht erklären kann?

Niemand sollte Rechts wählen, aber dieses erhabene “Dududu” mit erhobenen Zeigefinger kotzt mich an. Alles hat zwei Seiten.

Carice van Houten in zomergasten, het beloofde toen ik alle namen op een rijtje zag de meest boeiende uitzending van het seizoen te worden. Boeiend was het zeker maar de beste van het seizoen niet. Daarvoor liet Carice vooral dankzij Margriet van der Linden net te weinig los en speelde ze teveel op safe.

Margriet van der Linden deed er nochtans alles aan om door Van Houten’s pantsertje heen te breken. Ze confronteerde haar meermaals met haar trucjes om alles te relativeren en afstand te houden maar Carice nam het voor kennisgeving aan om hetzelfde vervolgens een fragment later gewoon weer te doen. Daarbij moet ook gezegd worden dat Van der Linden’s oppervlakkige vraagstelling nu ook niet echt uitnodigde tot meer dan wat voetnoten bij de fragmenten. De uitzending die de zomergast zelf vooraf omschreef als een aflevering met een lach en een traan werd er daardoor uiteindelijk vooral één die het van de lach moest hebben.

Gelukkig waren de fragmenten en Carice zelf meer dan voldoende om die vrolijkheid ook over te brengen. Het begon al met de totaal mislukte maar bijzonder grappige presentatie van de eggxactly uit de Britse Dragons’ Den. Vervolgens was het de beurt aan het geniale duo Laurel en Hardy waarbij de anekdote over de vader van Carice, die in de keuken al luid lachte voordat de grap gemaakt was, het fragment nog een leuk persoonlijk tintje meegaf. Het was echter held sinds The Office, Ricky Gervais die voor de grootste lach van de avond zorgde. Het fragment met Sir Ian McKellen, waarin hij uitlegt hoe hij Gandalf speelde, zorgde er in ieder geval voor dat ik de serie extras zo snel mogelijk zal aanschaffen.

Maar niet alleen de beelden maakten dat gisteravond een avond was om vrolijk van te worden. Carice van Houten zelf droeg daar ook zeer nadrukkelijk aan bij. Haar uitdagende houding bijna op het plagerige af en dat ondeugende lachje terwijl ze wat met de pen in haar mond speelt maakte dat het intrigerend bleef om naar te kijken en dat je meermaals twijfelde of ze niet ook gisteravond een beetje acteerde.

Het gesprek stokte echter steevast op de momenten dat Van der Linden de diepte in wilde en Carice daar niet al te ver in mee wou gaan. Of dat echter alleen aan Van Houten lag waag ik te betwijfelen. We kwamen gisteravond toch achtereenvolgens te weten dat haar relatie ten einde is, haar vader zijn kinderen al vroeg probeerde smaak bij te brengen, muziek een grotere passie voor haar is dan film, ze als puber erotische dromen over Paul de Leeuw had en ze in haar eerste jaar in Amsterdam vooral door de straten zwierf. Echte onwil om iets persoonlijks te vertellen was er dus ook weer niet.

Het probleem zat hem dan ook vooral in de interpretatie van de fragmenten. Voor Van Houten leken de fragmenten eerder ijkpunten uit haar leven, die stonden voor een bepaalde periode uit datzelfde leven. Van der Linden nam de fragmenten op zichzelf als inspiratiebron waardoor het regelmatig een gesprek werd waarbij de gesprekspartners niet helemaal op dezelfde golflengte zaten.

Gelukkig was er gisteravond zoals het een actrice betaamt ook veel film te aanschouwen. Carice getuigde over een uitstekende filmsmaak te beschikken met fragmenten uit Das Leben der Anderen, Adaptation en vooral het meesterwerk Magnolia. Jammer alleen dat bij die laatste film niet werd gekozen voor de scéne waarin de volledige cast Wise Up van Aimee Mann zingt. Het had de avond nog net wat mooier gemaakt.

Het was gisteravond echter ook zonder dat fragment een mooie avond en een boeiende uitzending die niet, om maar eens een understatement te gebruiken, de annalen in zal gaan als de meest onthullende aflevering aller tijden. Wel was het een luchtige en vrolijke aflevering die regelmatig een lach op mijn gezicht heeft getoverd en die bovendien afsloot met een prachtig nummer van Antony and the Johnsons. Het kon voorwaar vele malen slechter.

Opa Siegfried 16.03.1924 – 04.08.2009

21 – 23 iulie / Casa de Cultura “Mihai Ursachi”

Organizator: Centrul Cultural German in colaborare cu Casa de Cultura “Mihai Ursachi”

Program:

marti 21 iulie, ora 21.30
Das Leben der Anderen de Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck | drama | cu Martina Gedeck, Ulrich Mühe, Sebastian Koch | Germania | 2006 | color | 137 minute
Un ofiţer de securitate est-german primeşte misiunea de a spiona un dramaturg bănuit de planuri subversive la adresa regimului comunist. În scurt timp, sensibilul şi meticulosul securist va fi pur şi simplu fascinat de lumea ce i se descoperă prin intermediul microfoanelor care împânzesc casa scriitorului. Dar, odată pornit, teribilul sistem deopresiune nu mai poate fi oprit. A început un joc periculos, în care nu există intimitate, în care nu mai există nimic sacru, în care totul este posibil.

miercuri 22 iulie, ora 21.30
Lola rennt de Tom Tykwer | crima, thriller | cu Franka Potente, Moritz Bleibtreu | Germania | 1998 | alb-negru si color | 81 minute
Tanarul Manni face greseala fatala de a uita in metrou o geanta cu 100.000 de marci, primita in grija de la Ronnie, un traficant de automobile. Temandu-se pentru viata sa, Manni isi cheama in ajutor prietena, Lola, care nu are la dispozitie decat 20 de minute pentru a regasi banii si a-l salva pe iubitul ei.
* considerat de specialisti arta a cinematografiei postmoderne

joi 23 iulie, ora 21.30
Zugvogel – Einmal nach Inari de Peter Lichtefeld | comedie romantica | cu Joachim Król, Outi Mäenpää | Germania, Finlanda | 1998 | color | 87 minute
Hannes lucreaza in Dortmund ca sofer al unui camion ce transporta bere. Cea mai arzatoare dorinta a lui este sa castige premiul cel mare la Concursul International al Orarului, organizat in oraselul Inari din Finlanda.

* filmele vor fi subtitrate in limba romana
** intrarea se face cu aer liber

Nog niet zo heel lang geleden zag ik twee opvallende films binnen korte tijd. De ene was Der Baader Meinhof Komplex over de Duitse terroristische groepering de RAF, de andere heette Indigénes. Een film over de schandalige wijze waarop het Franse leger in de Tweede Wereldoorlog omging met hun kameraden de koloniale moslim strijders. Op zich niets vreemds zo zou je denken, totdat ik begon te denken over Nederlandse tegenhangers. Tot mijn verbazing moest ik concluderen dat Nederland een weinig indrukwekkende traditie heeft op het gebied van het verfilmen van de zwarte bladzijdes uit de vaderlandse geschiedenis.

Het mag toch op zijn zachtst gezegd vreemd heten dat er nog steeds geen Nederlandse film is over de Nederlandse rol in Srebrenica (de praktisch door niemand geziene miniserie De Enclave daargelaten), de VOC en de daarbij behorende slavernij verhalen, de foute Nederlanders in de Tweede Wereldoorlog of meer recenter de problemen met de Islam, de bijlmerramp of de deelname aan de oorlog in Irak? 

De ons omringende landen doen het bijna stuk voor stuk wel. In Duitsland waren de hoofdrolspelers in de laatste drie grote films naast de al eerder genoemde leden van de RAF, Adolf Hitler en een Stasi-agent. In Ierland zijn talloze films gemaakt over de IRA en de daarbij behorende twijfelachtige politieke keuzes. Frankrijk probeerde met La Haine de jongeren in de achterbuurten van Parijs te doorgronden, Spanje nam onlangs met Pan’s Labyrint de periode ten tijde van Franco onder de loep en in Italië zijn er voorbeelden te over van films over maatschappelijke misstanden.

De hoofdrolspelers uit de laatste drie grote Duitse films op een rijtje. (v.l.n.r. Adolf Hitler, (Der Untergang) De leden van de RAF (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex) en een stasi agent (Das Leben der Anderen)

Onze zuiderburen de Belgen kunnen misschien nog wel het best met ons concurreren. Zij hebben ook een allesbehalve grootse historie op het gebied van het verfilmen van eigen tekortkomingen. (waar blijft bijvoorbeeld een film over de rol van de Belgen bij de Rwandanes genocide) Al is Daens de verfilming over de wantoestanden in de Belgische fabrieken eind 19e eeuw natuurlijk wel een heus meesterwerk.

In Nederland blijft het echter angstvallig stil. Enkel regisseur Fons Rademakers mag met Max Havelaar en in mindere mate De Aanslag nog enigzins een filmmaker genoemd worden die de omstreden thema’s niet schuwde. Waarom de rest van het vaderlandse filmmakersgilde de zwarte bladzijdes angstvallig mijdt, geen idee. Krijgen ze geen subsidie of heeft het simpelweg te maken met de volksaard ik durf het niet zeggen. Het is echter te hopen dat er in de nabije toekomst weer een nieuwe Fons Rademakers opstaat want de mogelijke verhalen liggen, na zoveel jaar negeren, voor het oprapen

Anamaria Marinca in Cristian Mungiu's "4 Weeks, 3 Months, and 2 Days" (2007)

At the beginning of Cristian Mungiu’s Palme d’Or-winning film 4 Weeks, 3 Months, and 2 Days, the camera lingers on a goldfish in a square bowl. The fish seems to be trying to escape, not by jumping out, but by pushing directly against the glass, its tail thrusting spiritedly but without result.

It is an effective if too obvious metaphor for Romanian society under the latter days of communist strongman Nicolae Ceauşescu; the action here takes place in 1987, two years before the dictator’s fall. As the camera pulls back, we see that the bowl rests on a fold-out table in the dorm room of two female students at a regional technical college. The women are preparing for a trip of some kind. Gabita is packing a bag nervously, while Otilia ventures up and down the halls of the dorm, attempting to buy a pack of Kent cigarettes from a student-run black market dispensary two doors down, and purchasing soap for her friend to add to her baggage.

They are pretty young women, but otherwise average. Like most of their friends, they are criminals –- Ceauşescu’s economic policies had created intense shortages and had driven Romanians to participate regularly in the underground economy -– but they are in fact planning a much greater crime. Gabita is pregnant, and wants an abortion.

In Romania (unlike in the Soviet Union), abortion had been criminalized since 1966. In that year, Ceauşescu issued his infamous Decree 770, with which he sought to create a new Romania through a deliberately engineered baby boom. Thus 4 Weeks, 3 Months, and 2 Days is both a film about an abortion -– a harrowing one, at that -– and, perhaps more so, a film about what life is like when the law is an enemy rather than a friend.

Otilia (Anamaria Marinca) is a quietly confident young woman, accustomed to operating in a world of black markets and pervasive corruption. She is looking for Kents not because she wants to smoke them, but because she wants to trade them: she needs to get a hotel room at short notice for Gabita’s procedure, and bribing a desk clerk is the only way to pull this off. Gabita (Laura Vasiliu), by comparison, seems feckless and passive. Having been referred by a friend to a doctor who performs abortions, she unaccountably fails to call his preferred hotel to reserve a room in time, forcing Otilia to hurriedly find another. Later, ignoring the doctor’s instructions, she decides not to meet him in person, but to send Otilia instead. And with each failure to act, she sends a lie (she tells the doctor that Otilia is her sister) directed not at retrospectively justifying her passivity, but directed prospectively at ensuring that her passive approach will result in the end she desires. In a society built on lies and deceit, she’s an operator too.

Yet though their strategies and tricks have generally proved successful against the petty bureaucrats who enforce the regime’s minor rules, they turn out to be useless against a man like Doctor Bebe. A professional in his forties, Bebe seems at first to be nothing worse than a slightly grumpy father-figure. But once in their hotel room he begins gradually to weave a web of intimidation and fear. He points out the legal jeopardy they are all in already, and then, having exposed some of Gabita’s lies (including a rather big one concerning the stage of the pregnancy, which turns out to be worryingly close to the 5 months that defines “late term” — an abortion at this stage was punishable with a ten-year sentence under Romanian law), Bebe begins to hint that his payment will include sex with each of them. Naturally, they stall for time –- understandably unwilling to accept their own interpretation of his hints, and bewildered by this reversal in the expected progress of events -– and Bebe stages a furious walk-out in order to heighten their desperation and force them to agree. Terrified at being abandoned with their problem unresolved (how could they find a new doctor in the time available?), the women capitulate.

In his coercion of Gabita and Otilia, Bebe is an indirect product of the power of the state. Decree 770 offers desperate young women no other recourse than to break the law to procure an abortion, and thus forces them to seek help in a parallel world of anarchy and crime. Bebe rapes them because he can get away with it; he knows that they are both abjectly dependent on the service that only he can provide, and he knows that they are too terrified of arrest to report him for his crime. As inevitably occurs whenever the means to satisfy a human need or strong desire are banned, criminals occupy the void –- both to satisfy the need and to exploit the needy.

Yet Bebe is also a metaphor for that same power. He is a doctor, and so publicly claims to help the sick and the vulnerable. And, no doubt, he does so. Yet like a corrupt bureaucracy, he has a cynical eye on the side benefits that his services, and his position of power, can bring him. Thus he is capable of both grievously harming Gabita through rape, and afterwards, helping her by clinically and brusquely performing the desired abortion. Bebe even sounds like the government. In his increasingly one-sided negotiation with the women, he manages to sound disappointed, aggrieved, and bullying from one moment to the next. He speaks elliptically and vaguely, leaving Gabita and Otilia to attempt to restate more clearly what they think he meant, and then he scolds them for not listening to what he declares are his clear and repeated instructions. In both action and word, Bebe is the personification of the Romanian state under Ceauşescu.

Mungiu’s film is especially powerful in its portrayal of the long hours that follow the rapes and the abortion. Gabita and Otilia have sex with Bebe one after the other, so they pass each other in the bathroom: as one is finishing washing herself, the other enters. They do not look at each other. There is no solidarity in victimhood here; each woman has locked herself in her own private world of shame and shock. Once Bebe has left, and Gabita is confined to bed waiting for her miscarriage to begin, Otilia verbally reviews her friend’s lies, conducting her interrogation in a monotone of disbelief and suppressed fury. Yet the conversation peters out: Otilia is seeking the lie that led to this horrible event, but cannot put her finger on it. Otilia has to content herself with blaming Gabita in the most general of senses, but even this is little more than self-deception of the most ancient female type. Violence has been done to us; somehow we must have brought it on ourselves.

Though Gabita has been ordered not to move, Otilia has promised to attend her boyfriend’s mother’s birthday party, and her absence will be noticed. She leaves Gabita on the bed; their goodbyes are perfunctory, both women now emotionally withdrawn and exhausted. Once at the party, Otilia is quickly shepherded into the dining room and wedged between her boyfriend’s parents. The camera focuses on her for a long scene. All around her are middle aged professionals -– doctors mainly -– who chatter on about various banal and bourgeois topics (including a poignantly ignorant complaint about the spoiled children of today), and all the while Otilia’s face moves back and forth between polite smiles and flashes of stunned anxiety –- though whether she’s thinking about her friend’s condition or reliving the day’s horror is never clear. Over her shoulder broods her attentive but perplexed lover, who can neither understand her situation (even if he knew it) nor connect with her in any useful way. Surrounded by a generous and happy family, she is as alone as she can possibly be.

Mungiu’s long takes are particularly effective in portraying both discomfort and endurance. There are no short cuts offered, no way to escape the scene nor to shorten the time required to get to the other side. It is not enough for this director to simply trigger a flush of sympathy, or to convey only the idea of suffering. The situation must be lived, lived both in real time and wholly unadorned. Throughout the dinner table scene –- throughout the movie, in fact -– not a note of music is heard.

This refusal to use the tricks of the filmmaker’s trade to provoke emotional responses in the audience is one of the things that separates this film from another recent release set in Eastern Europe in the 1980s: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s DasLeben der Anderen (“The Lives of Others”, 2006), which tells the story of a top Stasi officer assigned to the surveillance of East Germany’s most popular (and apparently loyal) playwright and director, Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch). Though considered an “independent” film – perhaps only because it was made in Europe — The Lives of Others has a classical build: a beautiful score, lovely cinematography and set design, short scene lengths, quick pacing, and plenty of plot twists to build suspense.

It also depicts communist oppression at its most, for lack of a better word, glamorous. Both observer and observed are at the top of their professional games, and the surveillance itself springs from political machinations at the highest ministerial level. The playwright lives with his beautiful girlfriend, the famed actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck), and their parties host the most prestigious and talented of East Germany’s literati. When Dreyman finally decides to abandon the fine line between truth and loyalty he’s been tiptoeing down his entire career, his crime –- to pen an anonymous essay on the plague of suicide in the country, and to publish it in a West German newsmagazine — is of the highest political order. His Western editor smuggles an untraceable typewriter to him, so that if the manuscript is intercepted Dreyman himself will not be arrested. And all the while, the officer who has bugged his apartment (played by Ulrich Mühe, a well-respected German actor who died of cancer the year after the film was released) is wrestling with his own beliefs as his surveillance task exposes him to political debates and European culture for the first time.

Yet perhaps all of this beauty and high drama is the film’s Achilles heel. Its subject is too exceptional to serve as a comment on the lives of average East Germans – “the lives of others” is just that: not us. The film’s colour palette, though subdued and drab, is richly, gorgeously so. And a key conceit of the film, that hardened ideologues will turn into humanists if only they are confronted with the great cultural heritage of Europe, is simply naïve. Though moving and well-made, The Lives of Others is fundamentally a Western film about the East, and it occupies itself with many of the West’s favorite themes: a tale about heroic dissidents, brave Western journalists, and, if you’ll forgive the phrase, the power of love.

In 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, by contrast, the power of love and friendship is as weak and conditional as it is in real life. By the end of the film, Gabita still has not said sorry to her friend. It is a mark of this film’s honesty that Otilia doesn’t even expect her to.

Sebastian Koch and Martina Gedeck in "The Lives of Others" (2006)

Caution: This is not a movie review. Contains spoilers.

The Lives of Others (  German: Das Leben der Anderen) is an Oscar (and multiple) award winning film set in East Germany and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. After having seen this flick nearly 2 years after its international debut, I think that this is one of the best Political films you will ever see and certainly one of the best movies made in the last 10 years.  The film’s about a wiretapping expert who’s under the orders of the Ministry of Arts & Culture to spy and gather evidence that a famous playwright has anti-Socialist ideologies. 

Gerd Weisler (Ulrich Muhe), a staunch supporter of Socialism, is a interrogation expert who uses unusual methods of coercion to breakdown the suspects. He’s appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Arts to spy on a popular playwright Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) and his lover Christa-Maria (Martina Gedeck). A wiretapping expert by profession, Weisler with the help of Statsi agents puts Dreyman’s apartment under complete surveillance and everyday he begins his strenuous job of listening to the suspects’ conversations and reporting them to his superiors. Over a period of time, he begins to empathize with the situation of the writers and he becomes increasingly compassionate towards them. Untill one day, when all hell breaks loose and…

First things first, I had read about this film couple of years ago and the curiosity to watch this film just doubled after it won the Academy Award for Best Foreign language film in 2007. Earlier this year, I was disappointed for having missed this film at a film festival and finally the long wait culminated in the first week of June, 2009. The day I saw the film, I realised why this film figures in the Top 10 films of 2007 list of many critics.  It’s so damn brilliant, period! One of my friends even told me that a lot of people were clapping in the cinema hall when it was screened in Chennai, India. That’s an unusual and overwhelming reception for a foreign film especially in India.

Coming back to the movie, as the story unfolds Weisler is shown as a cold hearted, staunch supporter of Socialist-Communist Government who is hell bent on proving that the playwright has been plotting against the regime. But when he realises what the community of writers have been scheming he becomes increasingly sympathetic to their idelogies and even goes to the extent of protecting them from all forms of danger. One of the landmark scenes of the film has absolutely no dialogues. And all it has is Weisler paying attention to a Sonata which Dreyman plays on his piano when the latter comes to know about his friend, Jerska’s death. This scene will continue to haunt me for as long as I can remember this movie for several reasons, namely:

1. The music comes straight from Dreyman’s instant reaction upon receiving the news about his friend’s death. This melts Weisler’s heart who’s secretly listening to the music. You can look into his eyes and tell that he’s deeply affected.

2. The once impenetrable and cold hearted Weisler suddenly seems vulnerable.

3. This scene show that despite the mask we wear for the outside world, there’s certain amount of sympathy, heart & soul in all of us.

4. This single scene sets the tempo for what turns out to be a masterpiece.

5. Despite not having even a single line of dialogue this is probably one of the best scenes in the whole movie….all the emotions are brought to life by the remarkable performance of Weisler and Dreyman.

On the other hand, Dreyman who does have anti-socialist ideologies is wary about the government’s decision to ban his work. His dilemma is best explained in his dialogue with his lover, Christa-Maria on more than one occasion. Initially Dreyman doesn’t care about the Government’s decision is and proclaims that he will continue to write. But Christa Maria convinces him saying that his work needs people and their support and if his work is banned then there will not be any purpose to his life. Dreyman’s life and his ambitions change when his friend, Jerska commits suicide. With the help of few of his friends, Dreyman plans to write an article on the record  number of suicides of his countrymen and fellow writers which are marked as deaths due to natural causes in the government’s records. This number, as we are told, is only surpassed by those in Hungary. When his article is finally published, the survillence on him increases manifold. He slowly realises that Maria is having an affair with the minister much to his despair. But, the genuine lover he is, Dreyman understands  the circumstances under which Maria succumbs to the pressure. Twice in the course of the film, his house is ransacked by the agents of the government who eventually return empty handed. It’s only after the fall of GDR that Dreyman comes to know about Weisler’s existence and the extent to which the latter had helped him.

The film also throws some light on the tactics used by the erstwhile regime of GDR to subdue any information which individuals might use against the government. Thus form of censorship is both a bane and a boon at the same time to the writer’s community. Echoing one of the protogonists’ opinion, the censorship and the socio-economic conditions inspire the writers to lash out at the policies adopted by the government, in their writings but on the other hand there’s a definite possibility that their work will be banned for the same reason. The wire tapping, electronic and telephonic surveillance, coercion and submissive methods to extract information from the suspects are a nightmare. I can’t imagine the state of life under such circumstances and untill that happens probably I won’t understand what freedom means to me as an individual. Probably the very reason we write as we think is our quest for freedom and the fact that it exists for others to read is perhaps one of the best examples of freedom.

 It’s unfair to write about the actors/actresses and all other technicians associated with the movie. I fear that I might fall short of superlatives and adjectives. Calling them fantastically awesome will be an insult. Everything about them and the film is brilliant! If you are looking for a genuine masterpiece which reminds you about how beautiful our lives are, then “The Lives of Others” is the movie you should be watching. Because it’s not often when lives of others are so dreadful yet so full of hope and persistence.

Rent It, Buy It, Steal It, Download it….whatever you do, don’t miss this movie. It’s a well written story which has some terrific action brought to life by stupendous cinematography, background score, editing, screenplay and direction. Two thumbs up…if you call yourself a genuine movie buff and haven’t seen this movie, you definitely are missing a brave and beautiful film.

P.S: It’s doesn’t belong to the genre of thriller/suspense. But be prepared for some edge of the action sequences..:)

Photo courtesy-Wikipedia