MovieChat Forums > Das Leben der Anderen (2007) Discussion > Loved the characters,but very badly writ...

Loved the characters,but very badly written film

posted 14 years ago by monika-36
44 replies | jump to latest

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I can't believe this film received so many prizes! It is appalling! I say this even though, I was touched by it. .( aren't we all touched by romantic cheesy soap stories?) I know I am and I'm not ashamed of it,; and this movie defines a whole new genre, the word cheeesy needs to be expanded for this horrible, horrible narrative structure and, I can't even say, the characters are cliches! They are not even worthy of being called cliches! But still I was a bit touched by the final line of the movie and anyone can get carried away by handsome actors, but, what was the writer thinking? I really hate criticizing any work of art, no matter how bad, because ,I value an artists work as a creation of something out of nothing. And all a critic does is demolish it and tear it down.I would just really like to know what the writer intended to convey with this movie; guaranteed financial success at the expense of any artistic quality? Again I value it very much and think the actors did a wonderful job, but, surely, the narrative,.am I really alone here or does anyone else think it was a blatantly obvious joke because it was soo cliche filled? No offense intended, just genuinely curious!

[–] mikeg-50 14 years ago

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. What was cliche about it? It made me think about how oppressive it must have felt to live in such a place, and not that long ago. By luck, or lack thereof, we're born where we're born. I'm glad I was not born there (and I wasn't born in the U.S. either).

And if you think the script itself is bad...well, maybe you should try it in German instead of subtitles, if that's how you watched it. Not practical, I know, but you have to make an allowance.

[–] justxme 14 years ago

I don't see the clichees either although I had a big problem believing the change of the Wiesler character. I am willing to believe that without him realising it, lots of investigations like this had planted "seeds" of doubt, maybe even of shame in him about what he (and the whole Stasi) was doing, and the fact that he was going to ruin the lifes of these two innocent people finaly brought that "plant" to light. But I would have like it if they had shown that, not turning him from a hard hearted investigator and trainer to a soft man willing to ruin his own life for the sake of those strangers within 45 minutes of film time.

[–] monika-36 14 years ago

I really regret my harsh critique, and I appreciate your criticism of my opinion. I am a native German speaker who had a first hand experience, during my childhood of the DDR, I did not live there myself but due to my father's business , I visited East Germany and many other communist countries during my childhood. It has affected my childhood deeply, as you can probably imagine! As I said I value the movie so much, I honestly don't know why I reacted so harshly! I wish I did. I'll try to get to the bottom of it, must have something to do with me rather than the movie.

[–] monika-36 14 years ago

Just another thought, I think , the main female charachter, Dreyman's girlfriend was, to me , the most unrealistic, and I would say even, cliched figure, like an incorporation of a kind of superficiality of character and a lack of courage . I hope I will be rebuked by all of you and we can have an interesting discussion :-) I'm just sort of stating my first hand impression right after I saw the movie. I was really devastated by the fate of her character, it seemed so -inconsistent with her personality as she had expressed it earlier in the film-hence, I "branded" her character the cliche of the sensual lover who will eventually betray her man, and the real love existed between the artist (Dreymann) and the Stasi official, who turned? What do you all think? Is this realistic? I loved Wiesler's development and did not see it coming, but the development of Dreymann's girlfriend seemed so utterly not in character, not consistent with her character? What does everyone else think? Isn't this the big flaw in this film? Or was it intended? What did the writer want to convey with it?

Or the narrative structure used archetypes rather than real people deliberately, to sort of compensate for the rigiditiy of life as the writer might have experienced it, deprived of any mythology or romance in the DDR?

[–] garfieldian 14 years ago

It was the director’s first movie, I think it’s a fairly good film but has lots of problems. The characters were not badly defined and the acting was great, what they did with their budget was fabulous.

The big issues I had were the lacklustre direction. There was no energy to the direction and the film suffered. As for the script, the Stasi, would of course, never behave like this and I guess that’s a problem! They were a bunch of cowardly bastards and that’s it. I’m not a big fan of softening historical characters to fit a cuddly story. And I’m sorry folks but the ending was a step too far! What many saw as great, I saw as contrived and sentimental.
It seems that many of these recent movies appear to be aiming to win the best foreign film category at the Oscars. They are in effect Hollywood movies! Sentimental sappy, willing to bend historical facts to fit the soppy narrative, big reveal at the end. I just saw “The Secret In Their Eyes” a good film but also suffered from the same faults. Go and watch some Henke films like ‘Hidden’. That’s a great movie!

And before you say anything, I have never made a film, don’t know how hard it is (quite hard probably) and am fully aware how easy it is to criticise from your computer screen! But....there are far better foreign movies. Eric Rohmer anyone!

[–] minhal92 13 years ago

Hmmm, very interesting points OP.. the characters were certainly well developed, and the more I think about it the stronger I agree to "soft man willing to ruin his own life for the sake of those strangers within 45 minutes of film time." Weisler's change in character was quite out of the ordinary that is certainly true. And her actions were difficult to explain in my head to, switching between loyalty and betrayal, wierd.

[–] AlexEvensen 12 years ago

I don't think it's weird how he changed.

In the beginning we see him as someone who believes in his work. He looks suspiciously at others, trying to determine if they are traitors or not. He himself didn't like Georg Dreyman and wanted to investigate him, as he turned out to do of course, but only because his boss, Grubitz, took Wiesler's words for his own when talking to his own boss, Hempf, at the theater.

Then, throughout the movie, as a combination of keeping Dreyman under surveillance and seeing the hypocrisy of the other so-called Stasi, both his superiors Grubitz and Hempf, and others, it changed him. He saw what Dreyman had, and thought it good as him himself was alone and lonely (the scene with the prostitute).

At least that's how I saw it.

-
Dziga Vertov:
I am the machine that reveals the world to you, as only I alone am able to see it

[–] JurijFedorov 9 years ago

Yes, the main actress was written all over the place. It's like the script writer didn't even care about giving her a true personality. Her suicide just happens out of nowhere and does not seem fit for her personality. Really weird. But not a bad movie.

[–] garundaboink 9 years ago

This film is excellently written. I think the problem is with you Monika, and I think I understand why. In your view, you probably think people would have been more heroic than Maria was. To say more about her would give away story details, but I think you want your version of what happened during this time to be dominated by stronger characters. "We weren't all such moral weaklings. Some of us stood up to the oppression." That's the genius of the writer at work. He chose an actress whose future depended on the power structures in place. She was made weak by her desire to be successful and loved by her fans - and you should have been clued in to her weakness when the Hauptmann meets her in the cafe and gives his little talk to her. You should have been clued in when she gives in to the sinister minister. You chose to ignore the character development and placed yourself in her shoes. "I would never prostitute myself for my career","I would never betray the man I love for such stupid reasons," I hear you saying. It may well be true for you. And maybe you despise the character for her choices. I do admit to the movie containing a certain melodrama, and you get that when a director/writer has control over the story. US movies are made with the executive exercising much more story control. Story by committee, based on spreadsheet audience response (see "What Just Happened?"). Here I think the author has no checks and balances. What I ask myself is, is it possible? If the answer is yes, then I accept the premise, even if melodramatic. If you made an American movie this good for two million bucks then there would be a line-up of producers who wish to talk to you. I hope none of this offends you.

[–] legendlength 14 years ago

[...] I had a big problem believing the change of the Wiesler character.

I understand your concern with the way he changes from a hard-lined Stasi enforcer into a softy.

They seemed to show him as a perfectionist type of personality and he just wanted to do what was right. At first he believed strongly in the socialist system and thought he was doing the right thing by enforcing it strongly.

But then he realizes the system is far from perfect. e.g. the colonel practically raping the actress and the scene with Wiesler's superior officer at the lunch table.

And he sees that the writer is a good man who just wants to express himself via his plays. But the writer gets suppressed for no good reason really. I think there's a pretty believable path that Wiesler follows when you take all those things into account.

[–] ssmirjalili 13 years ago

I totally agree with you on that. That's maybe the films "biggest" flaw.

[–] mike-848 9 years ago

I think Wiesler really believed in socialism as an equality of sorts; like when he wants to NOT sit in the bosses area in the cafeteria as Grubitz suggested.

So I didn't have a problem believing the change in Wiesler. I think his tipping point was when he saw the hypocrisy of the big boss drivin in a fancy car, and usin him to frame the boyfriend of a woman he lusts after.

[–] lonmonster 14 years ago

Your post is a hypocritical shotgun blast of ignorance. To even begin a retort would be to put all the leaves back on a shaken dead tree.

No offense intended!

[–] garfieldian 14 years ago

Much better quality of posts on the art house movie forums, have you noticed? “Hypocritical shotgun blast of ignorance”. Very nice line, I must use that one! Well a shotgun blast yes, but I don’t think I am being hypocritical!

[–] lonmonster 14 years ago

I was referring to the original poster monika, not you garfieldian. Although I don't really agree with your post either, it hardly warrants the shotgun metaphor. Hehehe.

[–] garfieldian 14 years ago

Yes I realised that just after I pressed the ‘Post’ button. What an insufferable egotist I am!

[–] lonmonster 14 years ago

Abominably insufferable!

[–] smartalec-j 14 years ago

I ve just found this after 4 months very late, but Monika-36 MUST deserve my full backing. Despite the amazing amount of people impressed by this movie, it is just the SORRIEST PILE OF BANALITIES ever to be put on the big screen. Completely inexcusable. THE PUREST SH*beep*T

[–] dvoedusnik 14 years ago

I may have just topped your 4-month-late discovery of this thread, but I really think this film deserves better labeling, not to mention a fair amount of words typed in capitals just to balance your CAPS LOCK abuse. Next thing you know, Til Schweiger's acolytes will claim even his stuff's better than this (I mean really? You name THIS the purest sh*beep*t and you mean to say you have NEVER seen Keinohrhasen?).

But I digress. It may come as a shock to some, but 'writing' a film does not only mean dialogues between characters PERIOD. I'm not going to dwell on what it DOES also mean (treatment style, atm., transitions, etc) as I'm sure we can all think of a few more things other than character development, but I am going to say that whoever started this thread should have perhaps thought about all these before starting typing.
In terms of whether the film is the sorriest pile of banalities or not, I would say the question is kind of misplaced to begin with. I wouldn't give a sh*beep*t (just following in your footsteps) if this was the director's 100th or his first work, I guess I - like any regular film watcher - would not check the man's CV before pressing play on my DVD. This is just so that the 'it's_rubbish_because_it's_the_director's_first_feature_film' line does not come up again.

I thought Das Leben der Anderen was good. Maybe I would pick on the climax/tension thing, but I definitely wouldn't call it a pile of banalities.

[–] monika-36 13 years ago

I started this thread and I regret my awful and stupid criticism, you're quite right to point out the omissions in my sorry little train of thought, I am not kidding !!! I watched the movie again, and felt very different about it I'm just an idiot sitting in front of a computer screen,. who cares what I think about a movie made by lots of creative people. The movie that was made is wonderful! I usually love discussing and debating things, but I went way too far here and I apologize. And I look at my own writing with pain...

[–] jtf1986 13 years ago

I like how you and the OP claim the film is full of banalities and cliches, but then don't bother to give even one example to back your post up.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rage-against-the-mac-1 14 years ago

Before you start complaining about how badly written the film is, take a look at your own writing. Lol.

[–] monika-36 13 years ago

touché! Good point, you are absolutely right. I honestly see myself as you do.., I think I had a terrible day and therefore transferred it onto the movie. I honestly regret it.

[–] mirkea 14 years ago

You lost me at the characters being cliches. Either you don't know the meaning of the term that well or you throw it around too easily, but I didn't see it at all. There are a million movies where the characters felt like cliches but this ain't one of them.

[–] syd_tf 14 years ago

"What was the writer of this post thinking" was the first thing that came to my mind after reading this. well the writer was thinking beyond your understanding! and when you comment on the narrative srtucture, i suppose you understand German. if u dont know german and saw it dubbed or with subtitles, dont comment on technical writing of the movie, it makes you look stupid.

[–] jtf1986 13 years ago

Why, were the subtitles inaccurate?

[–] monika-36 13 years ago

Ich möchte mich ehrlich und von Herzen entschuldigen ! Ich kann echt gut verstehen, warum ich sozusagen, etwas fertig gemacht werde; ich hab's verdient. Der Film war so poetisch und schön! Ich werde ihn wirklich nie vergessen .

[–] sehdavies 11 years ago

Ich möchte mich ehrlich und von Herzen entschuldigen ! Ich kann echt gut verstehen, warum ich sozusagen, etwas fertig gemacht werde; ich hab's verdient. Der Film war so poetisch und schön! Ich werde ihn wirklich nie vergessen .

Genau !

[–] santasprees 14 years ago

The particularity of the setting and the quality of the performances do mask a very schematic story. The cheap, comforting moral equivalency of the redemptive act, so beloved by modern audiences, is flimsy and banal.

santasprees.blogspot.com
www.youtube.com/santasprees

[–] jtf1986 13 years ago

It was not cheap or banal.

[–] HurricaneKid 12 years ago

gee uh I dunno, umm err I kinda liked it!

This was a very well thought our script ad it deserved the accolades.

[–] mligorio 13 years ago

Best foreign film I have ever seen to date. I gave it my highest score, 9, a rare honor. The things I liked the most:

1) Novelty. I have seen very few films based on life in a socialist regime. Whereas, movies made in the States tend to be in the 'same-old, same-old' category.
2) Plausibility. The story is very believable and the plot is very carefully constructed with few, if any, logical flaws. This film is very unlike the far too far fetched, special-effects orientated nonsense they crank out in the States, which cost up to 100 times more money to produce.
3) Suspense, irony, and intrigue - A good example of irony is the joke the young officer was forced to say in front of his superior. And, it was hilarious too. Few events were predictable, and the only way to tell how the film would turn out was to watch it to the end. Did you notice, by the way, that they scared you without even firing one gun?

Things I didn't like:

1) Having to read subtitles.
2) Martina Gedeck, Dreyman's girlfriend didn't have enough sex appeal.

[–] blue-3 12 years ago

mligorio on Mon Feb 20 2012 11:26:55 wrote:

....Things I didn't like:

1) Having to read subtitles.
2) Martina Gedeck, Dreyman's girlfriend didn't have enough sex appeal.

Things I liked:
1. It wasn't dubbed so it felt like it was really happening in Germany -- even if I can't follow that accent very well. It would have been dreadful if they spoke English, particularly if they weren't German accents.

2. Marina has an interesting face that indicates that there's something interesting going on between her ears. Hollywood would have had a vacuous pretty face.

3. Believable characters largely well-acted.

4. The final image which was worth more than a thousand words.