I don't think it'll be very long before I watch it again. But this time with the commentary which should be interesting.
- Status
expat_mike
Well-known member
richardw42 said:
Do you mean when one of them questions the humanity of treating a suspect in the manner to which they had just listened, and Wiesler makes a pencil note against the students name? I presumed he was indicating that the student had unknowingly suggested a morality that was a threat to the views/methods used by the Stasi - and consequently the student should be watched or removed from his studies etc. Have i interpreted this all wrong? Maybe the Directors commentary will explain things for me.
Yes, I agree about noting of name etc, but I feel it could have been the start. The student was questioning the tactics used,
the interview with Christa was not as hard core, so perhaps he changed his methods because of this ?
We both need to see the commentary
i think that'll be my project for this week.
the interview with Christa was not as hard core, so perhaps he changed his methods because of this ?
We both need to see the commentary
i think that'll be my project for this week.
expat_mike
Well-known member
It certainly sounds like a key point to understand.
Until now, I have interpreted the scene as reinforcing in the mind of the viewer, the initial character of Wiesler, who regarded it as routine behaviour to record any instances of citizens showing humanity, so that they could be monitored in future.
Only after this could his journey to become a decent human being begin - and I associated the short section in the theatre, where Wiesler gazes transfixed by Christas beauty, as the moment where his historical faithfulness to the Party, starts to be corrupted/changed by feelings initially of lust. Only after this point in time, could Wieslers journey begin.
In contrast, you feel that Wieslers journey had already begun.
Strapped, please don't throw any spoilers in, until we have clarified this.
Until now, I have interpreted the scene as reinforcing in the mind of the viewer, the initial character of Wiesler, who regarded it as routine behaviour to record any instances of citizens showing humanity, so that they could be monitored in future.
Only after this could his journey to become a decent human being begin - and I associated the short section in the theatre, where Wiesler gazes transfixed by Christas beauty, as the moment where his historical faithfulness to the Party, starts to be corrupted/changed by feelings initially of lust. Only after this point in time, could Wieslers journey begin.
In contrast, you feel that Wieslers journey had already begun.
Strapped, please don't throw any spoilers in, until we have clarified this.
John Duncan
Well-known member
expat_mike said:
I tend to agree with this viewpoint - it defines him at the very beginning as being a 'party' man.
John Duncan
Well-known member
richardw42 said:
I think it would be interesting to explore what 'good' means in this context. Some might argue that being 'good' means upholding the law as defined by a given State, for example - in which case I agree with you. Whether he was 'good' in a wider sense, as we might judge it, I disagree, because I disagree with this particular State's view of law.
Yes, not good like Ned Flanders, but that he was being a good East German.
Without knowing his age, I guess he was a small child during the war and Nazism. So the Communist system was the saviour from that.
He had nothing, not even a real relationship. He tried with the prostitute but was rebutted. It occurred to me me that she worked the party, and he probably knew no different, but suspected there could be more to life.
His monitoring of the writer and Christa proved this to him.
Without knowing his age, I guess he was a small child during the war and Nazism. So the Communist system was the saviour from that.
He had nothing, not even a real relationship. He tried with the prostitute but was rebutted. It occurred to me me that she worked the party, and he probably knew no different, but suspected there could be more to life.
His monitoring of the writer and Christa proved this to him.
BenLaw
Well-known member
Sorry for my delay in posting on this, I am insanely busy with work at the moment.
I thought this was a very good film, but I did have a number of criticisms. I didn't get a chance to watch much of the extras before I needed to post it back, but on the making of (I think) the director said at an early stage how the whole film was built from a single idea, which was the scene where Wiesler listens in to Dreyman playing the piano and is moved to tears. Watching it at the time, it had the feel of a 'central scene'. If this had been a film where I was truly invested in the characters, I would have hoped to have been emotionally moved by it myself, and I just wasn't. Instead, I could sense this is the director trying to put the scene in and then build around it.
So my problems with the film distilled to two things. First, I wasn't emotionally invested in the characters. Second, I felt the storyline built around this central scene was a little formulaic.
Not sure what everyone else feels about emotional investment in the characters. Maybe you were invested in them, or maybe you weren't but didn't think it mattered. I felt with a very personal film like this, with a very small number of central characters that it was pretty vital. I couldn't help but feel they were having the equivalent of 'first world problems' being in fact wealthy and very privileged when there would have been all sort of hardships going on for the majority. I'd say this contrasts with Goodbye Lenin, which is a similarly personal film but seemed to me to have more relevance.
I could accept Dreyman's moral dilemma relating to the restriction of freedom of expression. But I couldn't help but feeling that of all repressions in a system such as this, this was one of the less important. I often worry when film makers depict their own arts, as was the case here. I just didn't get as concerned about it as the director seemed, understandably, to be. The printing of the essay seemed too small a victory against an oppressive state, certainly too small to warrant feeling emotional over the dedication in the book at the end.
In terms of the storyline, I felt it borrowed heavily from a couple of excellent books, made into very good films. The first interrogation scene between Wiesler and Sieland seemed to be straight from the rat / Room 101 scene of 1984, a betrayal forced under threat of one's greatest fear, in this case Sieland's desire / need to act. I felt this was in fact a slightly pale imitation, as it is easy to empathise with the visceral fear of rats, but less so with the desire to act, given the alternative consequences.
I was also reminded heavily of Fahrenheit 451, when Wiesler listened to the music and more so when he first read the Brecht. The latter is basically nicked from Fahrenheit 451, the reading of moving but banned literature, convincing a party man to rebel.
Having borrowed heavily from earlier dystopian literature, I was further troubled by the lack of obvious threat. I think the film would have worked better if we'd seen Wiesler do something truly nasty at the beginning. This would have made him a much more ambiguous character, would have made the viewer much more conflicted and would have made his conversion more startling and redemptive. It would have also given us a greater sense of imperilment of our two protagonists. Instead, all we saw was an interrogation where they made a guy a bit tired and asked him the same question a lot of times and a bit of moral threat against Sieland, who gets sent away with a pack of fags afterwards.
From the 8.5 on IMDB and the positive views on this thread, I suspect I'm in a small minority. I reiterate, I thought this was a very good film, but I love all this dystopian, repressive society stuff and I thought the film fell a little short in some regards.
I thought this was a very good film, but I did have a number of criticisms. I didn't get a chance to watch much of the extras before I needed to post it back, but on the making of (I think) the director said at an early stage how the whole film was built from a single idea, which was the scene where Wiesler listens in to Dreyman playing the piano and is moved to tears. Watching it at the time, it had the feel of a 'central scene'. If this had been a film where I was truly invested in the characters, I would have hoped to have been emotionally moved by it myself, and I just wasn't. Instead, I could sense this is the director trying to put the scene in and then build around it.
So my problems with the film distilled to two things. First, I wasn't emotionally invested in the characters. Second, I felt the storyline built around this central scene was a little formulaic.
Not sure what everyone else feels about emotional investment in the characters. Maybe you were invested in them, or maybe you weren't but didn't think it mattered. I felt with a very personal film like this, with a very small number of central characters that it was pretty vital. I couldn't help but feel they were having the equivalent of 'first world problems' being in fact wealthy and very privileged when there would have been all sort of hardships going on for the majority. I'd say this contrasts with Goodbye Lenin, which is a similarly personal film but seemed to me to have more relevance.
I could accept Dreyman's moral dilemma relating to the restriction of freedom of expression. But I couldn't help but feeling that of all repressions in a system such as this, this was one of the less important. I often worry when film makers depict their own arts, as was the case here. I just didn't get as concerned about it as the director seemed, understandably, to be. The printing of the essay seemed too small a victory against an oppressive state, certainly too small to warrant feeling emotional over the dedication in the book at the end.
In terms of the storyline, I felt it borrowed heavily from a couple of excellent books, made into very good films. The first interrogation scene between Wiesler and Sieland seemed to be straight from the rat / Room 101 scene of 1984, a betrayal forced under threat of one's greatest fear, in this case Sieland's desire / need to act. I felt this was in fact a slightly pale imitation, as it is easy to empathise with the visceral fear of rats, but less so with the desire to act, given the alternative consequences.
I was also reminded heavily of Fahrenheit 451, when Wiesler listened to the music and more so when he first read the Brecht. The latter is basically nicked from Fahrenheit 451, the reading of moving but banned literature, convincing a party man to rebel.
Having borrowed heavily from earlier dystopian literature, I was further troubled by the lack of obvious threat. I think the film would have worked better if we'd seen Wiesler do something truly nasty at the beginning. This would have made him a much more ambiguous character, would have made the viewer much more conflicted and would have made his conversion more startling and redemptive. It would have also given us a greater sense of imperilment of our two protagonists. Instead, all we saw was an interrogation where they made a guy a bit tired and asked him the same question a lot of times and a bit of moral threat against Sieland, who gets sent away with a pack of fags afterwards.
From the 8.5 on IMDB and the positive views on this thread, I suspect I'm in a small minority. I reiterate, I thought this was a very good film, but I love all this dystopian, repressive society stuff and I thought the film fell a little short in some regards.
John Duncan
Well-known member
Yes he made him a bit tired. He also made him sit on his hands on a piece of cloth so that the dogs would have something to sniff when they set them on him. There was no ambiguity in his initial position for me.
I get your point about it being a bit of a lame dystopia compared to, say, 1984, but I think the arresting part of this particular one was that it was real (or so we are led to believe), as opposed to Orwell's and Bradbury's imagined ones.
I get your point about it being a bit of a lame dystopia compared to, say, 1984, but I think the arresting part of this particular one was that it was real (or so we are led to believe), as opposed to Orwell's and Bradbury's imagined ones.
BenLaw
Well-known member
I don't think the dogs were to be set on him any time soon (otherwise no need to know what he smelled like), I think it was for if there were ever a manhunt in the future. In any event, I wasn't saying there was any ambiguity about him, just that there was a lack of visceral fear. The closest we came to that was his relationship with his numpty subordinate doing the secret listening.
As for your second point, you identify the problem. Whilst set in a real place, the story itself was no less fictional than 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 or Goodbye Lenin. For me, the mere fact it was set in communist East Germany was insufficient to give it a passport to being more 'arresting'.
What were your thoughts on whether you were or needed to be invested in the characters?
As for your second point, you identify the problem. Whilst set in a real place, the story itself was no less fictional than 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 or Goodbye Lenin. For me, the mere fact it was set in communist East Germany was insufficient to give it a passport to being more 'arresting'.
What were your thoughts on whether you were or needed to be invested in the characters?
BenLaw said:
Can you elaborate on this?
Certainly all four texts are fictional, though I'm not sure why this is a problem with The Lives of Others and not the other three films? Do your concerns have anything to do with the film's realist styling yet fictional narrative?
As a point of comparison, Bicycle Thieves (which we've discussed previously) is of course a complete fiction, though the filmmakers sought to highlight social and political issues through specific (realist) representational strategies.
As I've said before, I think Bicycle Thieves is an exceptional film. My concerns extend only to the critical hyperbole that coalesced around the film in the decade following its release, and that often informs current readings.
We might also think about two other "realist" films that are fictions, namely 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, and The Death of Mr Lazarescu. (I'm guessing FC members have seen at least one, or perhaps both; and admittedly the latter is open to less realist interpretations.)
Are these realist films any less valid or effective for their fictional narratives? I'm throwing these questions out there rather than offering definitive answers.
Are these realist films any less valid or effective for their fictional narratives? I'm throwing these questions out there rather than offering definitive answers.
BenLaw
Well-known member
strapped for cash said:
Not at all, that's not what I said. Rather, JD was making the opposite point (' I think the arresting part of this particular one was that it was real (or so we are led to believe), as opposed to Orwell's and Bradbury's imagined ones.') and I responded that I felt this ostensible reality did not give it any inherent advantage: 'Whilst set in a real place, the story itself was no less fictional than 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 or Goodbye Lenin. For me, the mere fact it was set in communist East Germany was insufficient to give it a passport to being more 'arresting'. '
All I was saying was that I'll judge those fictional accounts on the same terms, no matter whether there is an ostensibly real setting in one. I also didn't say that I preferred 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 to The Lives of Others. From my recollection of them The Lives of Others is probably a better film but I found the storyline of the others more compelling, and felt at least in 1984 thay it was better balanced in the areas I identified, character investment and genuine trepidation for their futures.
For me, there would be different considerations to take into account in the event that a film genuinely was about real events. I guess we could come back to Snowtown again on that one! It wouldn't give me any inherent positive or negative feelings about a film but there's another few layers to think about in that situation.
BenLaw
Well-known member
strapped for cash said:
I've seen Mr Lazarescu. As with previous post, my simple answer is no. I guess you could define 'valid' in such a way that the answer could change.
Apologies for misreading your post.
I'd assumed critique, based on your earlier comments and the arguably canonical status of the other texts referenced.
I still think the discussion above points to interesting questions about representation.
There exist, undoubtedly, a mass of stories regarding the Stasi and its effects on the East German people, though in this instance the filmmakers decided on a fictional narrative that is perhaps rooted in (or a composite of) first hand accounts. (I'm assuming the narrative is based on historical research into the Stasi's practices and life in the GDR.)
If the story told and characters depicted are fictional, what responsibilities (if any) fall on the filmmakers with regard to historical accuracy? And as suggested by your second response, does this responsibility change when re-presenting genuine historical figures?
As an addendum to my observations, we should of course acknowledge that no form of representation is true or authentic, and that all films, in this sense, are fictions to at least some degree. No film is apolitical.
I'd assumed critique, based on your earlier comments and the arguably canonical status of the other texts referenced.
I still think the discussion above points to interesting questions about representation.
There exist, undoubtedly, a mass of stories regarding the Stasi and its effects on the East German people, though in this instance the filmmakers decided on a fictional narrative that is perhaps rooted in (or a composite of) first hand accounts. (I'm assuming the narrative is based on historical research into the Stasi's practices and life in the GDR.)
If the story told and characters depicted are fictional, what responsibilities (if any) fall on the filmmakers with regard to historical accuracy? And as suggested by your second response, does this responsibility change when re-presenting genuine historical figures?
As an addendum to my observations, we should of course acknowledge that no form of representation is true or authentic, and that all films, in this sense, are fictions to at least some degree. No film is apolitical.
I've more or less decided to leave the film club, and possibly the forum too.
I get the feeling that some of us are struggling to maintain interest, and personally speaking, I'm struggling to find the time to watch the films, and I have at least 40 recorded or in my collection that I haven't seen yet, so I just don't have the time to watch the proposed films.
If I thought that I added to the discussions it might be worth me staying, but I have nothing to add that isn't far better stated by other members, and as I've said before, I prefer watching films, to discussing them.
Generally, I seem to have raised the hackles of other members, including people that I Iiked and respected, and I've been surprised at how upset I was by the loss of Big Chris, so it's probably time I moved on, if not from the forum, then definitely from the film club.
I wish you all good luck, and I do hope you'll continue the club, and give it the time that you should.
I get the feeling that some of us are struggling to maintain interest, and personally speaking, I'm struggling to find the time to watch the films, and I have at least 40 recorded or in my collection that I haven't seen yet, so I just don't have the time to watch the proposed films.
If I thought that I added to the discussions it might be worth me staying, but I have nothing to add that isn't far better stated by other members, and as I've said before, I prefer watching films, to discussing them.
Generally, I seem to have raised the hackles of other members, including people that I Iiked and respected, and I've been surprised at how upset I was by the loss of Big Chris, so it's probably time I moved on, if not from the forum, then definitely from the film club.
I wish you all good luck, and I do hope you'll continue the club, and give it the time that you should.
BenLaw
Well-known member
Nooooooooo! I have kept meaning to bump the thread but have been insanely busy with work. Should be easing off for a few weeks now. Don't we already have a film of Mike's lined up to watch? I too have a gazillion recorded and unwatched films, my attitude is the reverse, what's one more? Don't let the football threads overshadow the best thread on the forum!
chebby
Well-known member
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
There have been times when we haven't exactly been 'best buds' (and I shouldn't even really comment here as a non-member), but I really think you should weather this out and stay an active member of the forum.
I enjoy reading the Film Club (even if some of it's contributions go way beyond my understanding) and especially - like now - when one of my favourite films is being being discussed (The Lives Of Others).
Maybe just keep away from football threads (and a certain polymer pundit) and things might seem better.
A lot of us were shocked at Big Chris's death, but I doubt he'd have wanted his absence, for whatever reason (and I dearly wish it had been a benign one), to be a contributory factor to anyone leaving.
expat_mike
Well-known member
chebby said:
BBB, I would be sad to see you leave because you were the founder and intially the driving force behind the club, reminding the members of their responsibilities, and drumbeating the nomination, voting and viewing of films.
However i had noticed that you were keeping more and more in the background, but I didn't know what was driving you away.
I can reveal that the discussions about some films do go over my head, containing much academic sounding references to political movements, plus maybe the human tendency to look for structure and patterns in life, where non actually exist. Nevertheless I have made an effort to try and learn from what is discussed, and now do know more about the theory of film making than when I started. So I would say don't be defeated by a feeling that you cannot contribute to the discussions - look on it instead as a challenge to learn more about films. That was one of the challenges I had as part of my rationale for joining the club.
I too am struggling to find time to watch films at the moment, but I put that down to the current pressure of work, and the french summer weather. It feels difficult to sit inside watching a film, when the weather is so nice outside. I think the world cup has also been a factor, because I have spent time watching a few matches, when maybe I could have watched a film instead.
I think Chebby is right in his advice to you to avoid football threads for a while, plus the postings of a certain chelsea fan. He seems to be a red rag to a bull to you, and the threads just end up full of insults. I will say that I did think that some postings (not just ones by your nemesis) were just attempts to light your fuse, and see what happened. Those postings did sadden me, because I don't think such behaviour does the Forum any credit.
Finally I only knew Chris from reading his threads, and it is clear that many others knew him much better, and have consequently been greatly saddened by his death. I think that you are experiencing an example of the grieving process, and this is reinforcing your feelings that the film club is not worth the effort. Please don't make a rash decision to leave the club, until your sadness about Chris has subsided a bit.
BenLaw
Well-known member
Well said both of you :clap:
BBB, I watched one of your recommendations today, Throne of Blood. Can't remember if it's one you'd said you'd seem from that director? Really enjoyed it, the Macbeth story seems to work particularly well in the Japanese samurai setting.
BBB, I watched one of your recommendations today, Throne of Blood. Can't remember if it's one you'd said you'd seem from that director? Really enjoyed it, the Macbeth story seems to work particularly well in the Japanese samurai setting.
Stick around, BBB.
This thread goes quiet from time to time, while some FC members remain more active than others. (Obviously I'm not a member any more and possibly contribute more than most people would like.)
I understand your perspective. I've greatly reduced my post count of late, largely because my comments are ignored completely, or misrepresented by certain members to point out what a spiteful individual I am.
However, there are still a few people on here I enjoy chatting with (yourself included), so I've decided to respond only to these members, and to ignore the great majority of forum activity. You could try a similarly selective approach.
Focusing on this thread seems a good idea, since you started it and, like Ben, I'd argue that this is the best thread on the forum. There's a reason the WHF film club is still going after 10 months and more than 2,000 posts.
This thread goes quiet from time to time, while some FC members remain more active than others. (Obviously I'm not a member any more and possibly contribute more than most people would like.)
I understand your perspective. I've greatly reduced my post count of late, largely because my comments are ignored completely, or misrepresented by certain members to point out what a spiteful individual I am.
However, there are still a few people on here I enjoy chatting with (yourself included), so I've decided to respond only to these members, and to ignore the great majority of forum activity. You could try a similarly selective approach.
Focusing on this thread seems a good idea, since you started it and, like Ben, I'd argue that this is the best thread on the forum. There's a reason the WHF film club is still going after 10 months and more than 2,000 posts.
I've decided to hang around for a little longer, as I would seriously miss the film club if I was to give up on it.
I think the nature of Big Chris's death has made me think of my own mortality, and the risk I'm taking most days at work just to earn a living. My best friends dad died recently, a man I thought was indestructable, a man so good natured that none of us (including all of his family) could remember him losing his temper, or complaining about anything, ever. Though obviously I never knew Big Chris, I think he was a similar kind of person, and I was just overwhelmed by how unfair life is.
With this in mind, I just couldn't, and still can't face watching the chosen film for June, and with the seeming lack of interest of some members, I just couldn't raise any enthusiasm to bother any more.
Anyway, I'm back for now, but where we go from here, I don't know, as the club does seem to be losing it's appeal to more than just me.
I think the nature of Big Chris's death has made me think of my own mortality, and the risk I'm taking most days at work just to earn a living. My best friends dad died recently, a man I thought was indestructable, a man so good natured that none of us (including all of his family) could remember him losing his temper, or complaining about anything, ever. Though obviously I never knew Big Chris, I think he was a similar kind of person, and I was just overwhelmed by how unfair life is.
With this in mind, I just couldn't, and still can't face watching the chosen film for June, and with the seeming lack of interest of some members, I just couldn't raise any enthusiasm to bother any more.
Anyway, I'm back for now, but where we go from here, I don't know, as the club does seem to be losing it's appeal to more than just me.
BenLaw said:
I think I may have recommended it to you Ben, but I haven't actually seen it, though I'm sure I have it in my Kurosawa box set. I must get around to watching it.
Even though I have lots of films still to watch in my collection, I couldn't stop myself from buying 4 more from a charity shop at £1 each.
The Beekeeper (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091506/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Last Life In The Universe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345549/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
Japon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322824/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
The Eel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120408/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2)
The Beekeeper (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091506/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Last Life In The Universe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345549/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
Japon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322824/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
The Eel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120408/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2)
BenLaw
Well-known member
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
I'm really struggling with this ridiculous new format on my phone so I'll have to keep things short.
What risks do you have to take at work? That sounds troubling.
I'm glad you want to continue with film club. I haven't lost interest in it and I'm pretty sure mike is still very keen. Perhaps the other members could indicate their ongoing enthusiasm, failing which you put a call out for new members. Chebby, for example, clearly follows the thread and sounds like he knows a few good films.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram