logo

iView Author:
Azad
( Bangalore, India)

Email:
azad.ksingh [at] gmail [dot] com

Lives of Other - Sonata Of a Good Man

If I were a director, and someone came up with a story like “The Lives of Others” to me, my first reaction would have been to fill the film with some very simplistic yet powerful dialogues. “A film is as good as it dialogues”. This is the myth that I had been nurturing about great cinema for years.. But for the first time in my life, my belief has been challenged and how!!!

Lives of Others is set in the last few years of East Germany, before the Berlin wall was brought down. East Germany, was then ruled by a Socialist regime, that believed in exercising control over each and every aspect of human life of its citizens, more so of the artists. Artists, as a famous socialist had once said, are the Engineers of human souls. And if you can control the mind of the artist of a society, it becomes easier to control the society as a whole. As a result of this, each of the plays, movies, writings were thoroughly scrutinized by the ministry of cultural affairs, before going public.

In every such society, you will find at least two kinds of people. One, who firmly believes in the principle of the state and other who rebels against the state.

Wiesler, is a staunch socialist who genuinely believes in the principles followed by Stasi, the secret service of East Germany. The Stasi is entrusted by the government to keep track of the Lives of people, who might cause potential damage to socialist fabric of East Germany.

Dreyman, on the other hand is rebel, but not the kind we find in most of the movies. He is a part of the system and adheres to the laws and restriction imposed upon him and his profession by the state. But he wants to change the system, and is in constant struggle with the state for more artistic freedom. The cultural ministry, sniffs the rebel inside the Dreyman, and instructs Stasi to keep track of Dreyman’s moves. Wiesler takes up the task of wiring his house and listening to his conversations.

On a constant look out for evidence against Dreyman, Wiesler is confronted with the evil side of socialism and starts to value the right to private and sacred life of every human being. How things change in the lives of Dreyman and Wiesler follows the rest of the plot.

Never before have I seen a film of such a magnitude where picture speaks louder than words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Yes Indeed. The socialist fabric of the state looms large over each and every frame of the movie, where silences speaks louder than words. The last half an hour of the movie goes on with very few lines and still manages to convey the feelings of both the protagonists. The manner in which Dreyman, conveys his gratitude to Wiesler and the way Wiesler acknowledges it, is one of the most innovative cinematic moments that I have ever seen. The concept of realistic heroism, portrayed in this movie, deserves a special mention as well. You can change the world only if you accept to be a part of it. Changing the world from outside, becomes too dictatorial to be progressive. Dreyman, was in constant struggle to change the part of the world by accepting to be a part of the world.

I am not aware of the previous or later works of the cast and crew, but each one seems to have done a fantastic job in this film. Its indeed difficult to believe but the director has come out with such a masterpiece in his very first tryst with cinema. Lets hope that he doesn’t get burdened by this movie and comes up with more such masterpieces in future.

Even though the movie is based in former East Germany, the film has got an universal appeal. There’s not a single country in world, where individuals haven’t been at loggerheads with the state. No government in the world has ever succeeded in granting complete freedom to its citizens. Every state thrives on dedication and integrity of people like Wiesler and people like Dreyman keep the hopes alive for a better tomorrow in every corner of the world. No wonder, this movie received an oscar in 2006.

While watching this movie last night in a local multiplex, I cringed at the irony of the scenes deleted by the Indian Censor Board. A film which highlights need for more artistic freedom, is trimmed to satisfy the ego of the members of the board. What is a director if he can’t direct, what is a writer if can’t write, AND what is an audience if he can’t watch a movie that the director wanted him to? Instead, the audience are forced to watch the truncated version. But in spite of all this, I call myself lucky to have had the chance to watch this movie on big screen.

Watch it if you haven’t seen it. You might not get another chance to watch a movie of this magnitude on large screen in your entire life again.