Plot holes

Problem 2:

A: He has to get a confession out of her, because the boss is watching.
B: Once he gets it, he has to decide what to do. He could let the typewriter be found, and have Dreyman majorly fu*ked. Or he could hide the typewriter, and have Seiland minorly fu*ked. Pick or choose.

AI did not quite understand why Christ would not say anything on what Hempt was doing, why did she not trust her boyfriend.

Having just watched the film I'd say this thread should be titled "I didn't really get it", rather than "Plot holes".

#1 assumes that they are sure of their ability to find bugs hidden by Stasi professionals who are trained to hide them and have a reputation for an almost supernatural ability to bug locations. It's better just to test the bugs with a false smuggling operation. Lets say that they had checked for bugs and missed a light switch? Or the Stasi had hidden it in the baseboards? Or the couch? Or someplace else? Then they'd be screwed. This way they can actually test whether anyone is listening. And there's little risk. At worst, their friend crossing the border will probably be detained for a day or two while the Stasi tear apart his car looking for contraband.

#2 Weilser couldn't save Seiland. She was already caught. But he could save Dreyman.

#3 Because the government is skeevy but not that skeevy. It might very well have come to that but they wanted to find something real on him. Plus they had real state security reasons for wanting to find the person who wrote the article. If it wasn't Dreyman then they'd need to look elsewhere.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

[deleted]

1) No one just automatically assumes its behind the ligt switches lol, that's a big assumption. Plus no one knows how they are being spied on or where they are being bugged right off the bat. If the plan failed he would of searched the house and found the bugs but the plan worked so he had no reason to search his house for them.

2) There are very small details in the movie that play a role. Notice how the camera always focused on the chair and thighs. He did not make her put her hands under her thighs. Also he tried to hint that he was one that talked to her earlier in the bar. He was saying the right things to seem like he was on the Stansi side but he was also saying the right things to hint and try to get her to remember who she was and what was the right thing to do.

3) Dreymand had very important friends, and a very well known artist. He was one who you could not just get rid of.

And Weisler is part of the Stasi because he believes in the idea of socialism. He soon realized that the government doesn't believe in the idea of socialism but the idea of power. While spying on Dreymand and Christa he realizes that they are just a couple in love trying to live their lives but keep on being ruined and controlled by the government. You see him change throughout the movie, great character development. For instance a good turning point was when the kid entered the same elevator as him. The kid said his father told him that the Stasi were bad people who etc( forget exactly what else it was). Weisler began to ask for the fathers name but stopped short and just let it be. In the beginning of the movie we would have seen Weisler ask for the name however, after spying on the couple he soon realizes how corrupt the Stasi is and how they abuse their power.

Almost every scene plays an important role in the movie, no unnecessary scenes.

Also did anyone else think the last line of the movie was ironic?

[deleted]

*beep* u

nuff said

As Tyler Durden once wisely said, "Self improvement is masturbation."