Talk:The Lives of Others

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

The relationship of the film to the patriot act is not mentioned.

Contents

[edit] Release dates

The Sonata takes a more important role than is discussed. The black listed producer gives the playwrite the sonata "Sonata for a Good Man" for his 50th birthday. When the playwrite plays the sonata, the Stazi agent crys while evesdropping spying. The playwrite remarks to his girlfriend that anyone who has heard this sonata would be a good man (become a good man). Later in a bar, the Stazi agent pursuades the girlfriend to return to the playwrite without making the coerced visit to the minister. She says to him, you are a good man. These are our cues to set up that the playwrite will not be the only good man in the film.

When was this movie "released" in Europe? I know in Denmark it's already out, 'cause I just went to see it (awesome movie, by the way). --Mathew 21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

-> 23. March 2006 in Germany 138.246.7.114 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that the party is most likely for Dreymans 45th birthday party. He was born 1939, as printed in the text in the brochure that Wiesler reads in the theatre. Apparently the discussion about Dreymans 40th/50th birthday is an in-joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.159.103 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't want to read too much into anything but is there actually some inconsistency in the timing of the film?
See discussion below re 40th anniversary of the republic; someone was saying that that would in fact be 1989, not 1984 (i have no idea); did the writer begin by setting the first bit of the film in 1989, set the character's dob as 1939 and use 40th anniversary of East Germany as (pretend) subject matter of play, then changed film to 1984 (in order to (a) refer to George Orwell story of that name, (b) co-incide with gorby election, and (c) allow some distance in time between the first two phases of the film) but without bothering to address the fact that (i) the birthday was now wrong, and (ii) the anniversary celebration was now hopelessly premature Sock puppet2005ad (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation on amend

The movie that appears in the video Try Again from Keane is not Das Leben Der Anderen (The Lives of Others) but the also german movie One Way.

IMDb


[edit] Motivation

Why was Wiesler initialy suspecting Dreyman? Because he profilled Dreyman as an arrogant person who could easily turn against the regime, or because he was seduced by Christa-Maria?

Wiesler was simply obeying orders at first. But he was also (unlike the other "officials") an idealist who really believed in his job, even tho it clearly brought him no personal reward. The cafeteria scene was instructive: when Wiesler and his boss sat at the "enlisted men's" table, and the boss suggested moving away to the Officers' table, Wiesler declined, saying " Socialism has to start somewhere" Feroshki 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basis?

Does this story have any basis in reality? For example, was the Spiegel article a fake? Brutannica 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the user ( above) may mean, was the Spiegel incident *fictional* ( fake means something else ). Fictional or not, I imagine there were plenty of incidents of that nature Feroshki 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a Spiegel cover in mid-1989 that was very similar to the one shown (minus the noose, as it was about problems in the GDR in general). I'll see if I can dig it up... ProhibitOnions (T) 09:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "telephone" joke

Are there any german speakers who 'got' the telephone joke? It was translated as 'what's the difference between hoenecker and a telephone? None - hang up and try again.' 82.109.222.194 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer: This riddle joke is in German and could not possibly be translated into another language properly. Grubits asks about the difference between Erich Honnecker (the leader of East Germany) and a busy telephone line. The answer is really nothing says Grubitz, and tells the punchline "Aufhängen, neu wählen". This can mean two things. When talking aout phone calls, it means "hang up and dial again", but in politics it means "hang him (i e kill him) and go to new elections". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.159.103 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Sun" joke

Did anyone notice, that the guy behind Wiesler in the "steam cellar" , who tells Wiesler of the Fall of the Wall, was the same character who told the "Sun" joke earlier in the film; and was presumably demoted for his "poor attitude". This was a nice touch of detail Feroshki 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, even at the lunchtable he said he worked in "Department M", which is where Wiesler was told he was being sent to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcalabrese (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when did the Minister/Christa relationship begin ?

While it is clear that Christa was an unwilling partner to the Minister, it was also noticeable that he was able to "pat her behind" surreptiously even at the beginning of the film ( in the foyer of the theatre!), which suggests that they were involved in some liasion even before the film begins....if this is the case, it changes the plot slightly, and the current Article suggests the Minister is motivated by some merely future plan to Possess her... Any comment ? Feroshki 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)----

no, it's just that germans, and europeans at large were quite macho until fairly recently. patting a woman on the backside was considered rude behaviour, but not worthy of being dignified by a violent outburst (verbal/physical... perhaps legal) as you would witness in much of the western world today.----EB.Zilch

[edit] Christa-Maria

In the plot description it says that she threw herself in front of the truck, but to me it seemed like an accident, and happened because she was in a rush to get away? Krang 08:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

to me, definitely suicide or whatever. SECProto 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 40th anniversary of the GDR?

Did anyone else find the pretext of writing a piece in early 1985 for the occasion of the GDR's 40th anniversary (which would be 7 October 1989) a little premature? If I were a Stasi agent, this would probably set off bells, although this does not appear to have been the reason this was included; however, when this was mentioned in the film I initially assumed the setting had moved forward a few years. Perhaps the pretext of the anniversary should at least be mentioned in the text. ProhibitOnions (T) 12:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. They were taling about writing a play, not an article. So it could have teken time to write then stage, cast etc., until finally it was ready. --Amcalabrese 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
see my comment above; is it a co-incidence that playwright's birthday is also 5 years out (he was apparently born in 1939 but said to be celebrating his 40th birthday in 1984)? Sock puppet2005ad (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Tags

I read this article and decided that obviously Spoiler tags should be applied. I see that someone has now removed them and wonder why they were removed. "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists." The Plot section in this article covers a lot more than the 'basic' plot, giving away all the 'twists' contained within the film itself. I think tags should be applied, or the article re-written so that it simply covers the plot without giving too much away. Any further thoughts on this... Stephenjh 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ebert review + response

First of all, Ebert's comments seem out of place in the "Criticism" section. He doesn't really criticize or praise the movie, but rather compares it to contemporary times. I think this would belong more in "Reception from Critics and Others" in a subsection called "Contemporary allegory" or something like that. Second, the paragraph immediately following it - a comment posted on Ebert's blog - does not belong in this article. It asserts that the film is historically accurate without offering any discussion or specific evidence (in contrast to Slavoj Zizek's criticism). It then goes on to assert that Hollywood doesn't make enough movies about Communism. Since "The Lives of Others" was made in Germany (not Hollywood) this is not very relevant to a discussion of the movie at hand - it might fit better in a page about Hollywood or anti-war movements, etc. Unless there are any complaints, I'd like to move the Ebert part to a different section and reference it, and remove the second paragraph. If people are concerned about political neutrality I think it would be better to present Ebert's comments in a neutral tone, rather than to add a "counterpoint" where one is not appropriate. Rossmcd (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Rossmcd, but I think it would be even better to completely remove both paragraphs. Nothing against Ebert: I bet he said something else about the movie that we could use, but these two paragraphs are off subject. Noroton (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


why is it important what some random internet user wrote to Roger Ebert on his computer? It doesn't add anything to the article, and his hardly a reputable source. I am deleting it.
--216.110.236.243 (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview with Donnersmarck

Amazon interview - he talks about the inspiration for his film (ie. Lenin and Beethoven.) JAF1970 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good question

One unresolved issue. How did the GDR Govt. got its hands on the ORIGINAL article that sucessfully made the trip to Der Spiegel? Did it have spies in the magazine? This issue is not explained in the film.

Answer: This is explained. In the scene where Grubits talks to a superior on the phone, he says that they have a "IM" ( = Informelle Mitarbeiter = a "Part Time Spy") at Der Spiegel. They talk very fast and You might likely miss it, but it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.159.103 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree: Gubrits says something about "our friend in Der Spiegel" (English subtitles) ***philosopher2king 3/23/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.163.162 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing elements in the plot

The plot is pretty detailed, so why does it miss the entire encounter with the prostitute in the protagonist's apartment and its affects? -62.219.107.28 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it adds to it. It showed that Gerd was looking for intimacy, as when he asked her to stay longer. All the scenes in his apartment were subtle but compelling: When he had pasta (or rice) with tomato sauce from a a tube, the sex with the prostitute or the drab nature of his spacious living space said that the state provided for all his needs, but he was missing the soul of it all. He was fed but not nourished. He had sex but no intimacy. He had an apartment but not a home. Juxtaposing that to Georg's life tells one why he realized he was just existing, not living. Interestingly, notice that both characters have variations of the same first name. The one scene that I thought was out of character was him stealing the Brecht book out of Georg's apartment; up until that point in the movie Gerd just had little stirrings of transformation, nothing radical. For him to break protocol and search the apartment only to steal a book didn't seem very realistic. But hey, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen! *** philosopher2king 3/23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.163.162 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music in the pub

What is the background music playing in the pub? Is it East German pop music? -Rolypolyman (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was able to track it down through the English narration track. It's "Wie Ein Stern" (Like A Star) by Frank Schöbel, from 1972. -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

The criticism on the article is rather weak. Correct me if I am wrong but: "... as when a dissident confronts the minister of culture and doesn't seem to face any consequences for it. Zizek also says the character of the playwright is simply too naive to be believable." It's not accurate. The friend he is referring to is, I think Karl (I can't remember) but it is said in the film that he has lost his privileges to travel to the East side for lectures. After Christa tells Georg about it he says something like "what could he expect after talking to them like that."

Other points such as "Of the three features — personal honesty, sincere support of the regime and intelligence — it was possible to combine only two, never all three. The problem with Dreyman is that he does combine all three features." Are, well, too subjective to be significant. Witty and interesting yes, but nothing that would merit hard criticism to be included in this wiki.

Whaddaya all think? ***philosopherking 3/23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.163.162 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some strange sources

Hi folks. Out of couriosity (I just wanted to know how people that don't speak German percieve this film) I read the article. However this sentence is absurd:

The film succeeded in Germany despite a widespread contemporary reluctance in the country, particularly in its films, to confront the totalitarian excesses of the East German state.

It is not true that nowadays Germans don't get confronted or don't want to be confronted with the totalitarian past in the GDR in films or other media. You hardly can't miss the topic in public life since reunification. Previous to "Das Leben der Anderen" were several cinema films about the GDR e.g. Berlin Sonnenalle, Goodbye Lenin, beside numerous (!) documentaries and movies in public and private television not to mention books, news paper and magazine articles, speeches, public debates, lawsuits, museums... Sure there are some vocal people that want to silence the past but although they won some lawsuits, the overall reaction was an even enforced public debate and interest on the topic (just recently there was a prominent and widely discussed lawsuit in which a former Stasi agent lost against an exhibition on the Stasi and such public interest was not different previous to this film). So I am a bit puzzled by the claims of the both sources [1] (the sub title "A forbidden topic captivates nation" is clueless at best) and [2]. However there definitely was a debate on "Das Leben der Anderen". But it was completly different than suggested by the article. Thi film was mainly critizised as not cruel enough for reality and as too positive on the Stasi. People mainly were upset that the film suggests that there might could have been a Stasi agent in reality that protected his target person (such a couraged behaviour of a Stasi agent is not known up to know). So people feared that this could be percieved as yet another "Good bye Lenin" (which sometimes was percieved as romanticism of the GDR). This was the single true controvery about the whole film and not that someone wants to silence the past. Ok so what do I want? I'd suggest to remove the above quoted sentence and not to use the Boston Globe article as a reliable source. —Preceding signed comment was added by Arnomane (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 May 2008, but its signature was removed while fixing wiki markup errors.