Skip to main content

Das Leben der Anderen

The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen, 2006) is recently out, in the UK, on DVD. The film is extraordinary, in any number of ways. Its central heroic figure was the actor himself, one Ulrich Mühe, whose gaunt, sad-beautiful face (as above) captured so many Academy voters' hearts and minds earlier this year, when the film won the best Foreign Language Picture Oscar - not least because the man later died from cancer after flying to Hollywood to be present at the film's success. It emerged that he had known he was dying as he made the film, imbuing his already-haunted performance with an other layer of stoic, even profound, grandeur. And it is a great performance.

News that Hollywood wants to do an English version remake seems rather gross, in the circumstances, laying a new actor over this beautiful, unique performance, but, worse, redundant. The Lives of Others is a curiously American film - complete with romantic score replete with soaring strings, three-act structure, and the infamous "Hollywood ending". Not less than some Speilberg film (as in Schindler's List) historical horrors once thought nearly unspeakable (one laments the death of the last mime to know that the Holocaust also asks for silence) - in this instance communist cruelty behind the Berlin wall, in 1984 (hardly a subtle year) - are terminated as in a happy therapy, with an ending that sees a completed character arc, and a lost man redeemed. Liberal humanism's values restore the balance. All is good.

I think The Lives of Others is a superb film, brilliantly photographed and acted, and the screenplay is complex, and flattering to the intellectuals (or film critics) who swooned for it (as did I, so quickly I revisit my love with some form of meditation). It flatters artists and intellectuals, because they are shown in a positive light - even the suicides and drug addicts are ultimately beautiful, either spiritually, or physically. At the heart of the film are several love relationships - between a writer and his actress, between a powerful and cruel government minister and the actress, and between the writer, who is handsome and good, and the "good Stasi" agent, who spies on the mythically wonderful artists, and thereby is redeemed by art.

As Arendt, and others, have shown (and recent death camp footage confirms) it was possible to listen to (even play) Beethoven, and still be a sadistic killer. Art, it has long been known, does not redeem, or transform, the citizen. If it did, the wealthy few patrons who support opera and art galleries in America would be saints. They are not. In this lovely utopian film, a reading of Brecht's sensuous love poetry, and the observation of doomed, sexually-charismatic geniuses, compels a sea-change of the soul. I realise the film emphasises that one needs to "really listen, really hear" the music, to be changed for the better, but that seems somehow a circular argument, worthy of a theology of predestination - for who but an already angelic listener is capable of truly listening so well their soul can be made pure?

Of course, the villain is a system - Communism - that engineers souls. The hero, the surveillance man, like in The Conversation, but this time in Technicolour, finds a couple that short-circuits the system, and souls are allowed to escape. It is notable that the woman has to be sacrificed on the altar of drama, so that the two men can - in true Western buddy-style - bond at the end, sharing a trans-historical epiphany. If you write it, he will come.

What the film fails to suggest is how capitalism - the alternative economic system on the other side of the wall - sets its own destructive forces against artists - not least in the way it emphasises a competitive, market model, for the funding, creation, publication, dissemination, and reception / evaluation of art work. Damien Hirst is famous because he commands money for his work, as much as for any "inherent" value of the work. Artists in America, Canada, and England, "liberated" by a market economy, sell out, and are betrayed, in other, various ways. Hollywood, and the German film industry is a satellite of that system, is the first exemplar of such a punishing regime.

I want to believe this film is true. That a good man can be redeemed by beauty, and that art can in turn capture, and reward, such goodness. For history, good and evil seem too simple, the terms are far more compromised. Still, Germany has a new wunderkind director, and, also, another star, in the charismatic Sebastian Koch - who appeared in another great film of 2006, Black Book. Koch seems to me the most handsome, impressive European actor now working in film, and, on his way to greater roles, he would, at the very least, make a superb Bond villain.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".