I know that most people adore The Lives of Others
and find this movie very touching. I, however, could never get into it because of how wrong it gets many of the most basic details of the characters' daily existence. I don't like Cold War rhetoric and imagery because of how reductive and unintelligent they are. It's always the good versus the evil, and it doesn't matter which side of the Iron Curtain you are on. The verbiage is the same and the desire to reduce complex realities to a bunch of cheesy stereotypes is omnipresent. Both sides judge each other according to their own, very limited ideology, without ever trying to understand that things might be a little bit more complex.
and find this movie very touching. I, however, could never get into it because of how wrong it gets many of the most basic details of the characters' daily existence. I don't like Cold War rhetoric and imagery because of how reductive and unintelligent they are. It's always the good versus the evil, and it doesn't matter which side of the Iron Curtain you are on. The verbiage is the same and the desire to reduce complex realities to a bunch of cheesy stereotypes is omnipresent. Both sides judge each other according to their own, very limited ideology, without ever trying to understand that things might be a little bit more complex.During the Soviet times, my father always listened to the BBC (secretly, of course) at night. "They are fools, all Westerners are fools," he would fume in the morning. "Last night they said that there were human rights abuses in the USSR which consisted of people not being allowed to travel freely abroad. They have no idea about who we are and how we live. I have a PhD in linguistics and I have to leave aside my research and spend the entire next week sorting rotten cabbage. But, sure, not being able to travel abroad is my main concern."
I was reminded of this reductive Cold War mentality as I was watching The Lives of Others. The filmmakers so obviously made their film with the goal of selling it to Americans that it was painful to watch. Take, for example, that scene where the character who works for the Stasi comes to his BARE apartment, where he lives ALONE, eates a plate of spaghetti with KETCHUP and invites a PROSTITUTE over to his apartment. I mean, how much more ridiculous than that can you get? And, of course, if a movie is so careless with the minor details, how can you expect it to deliver anything more reliable in terms of the big picture? The result is this unbearably cheesy Americanized fantasy about what life behind the Berlin Wall was like. A fantasy that has nothing to do with reality.
. The filmmakers so obviously made their film with the goal of selling it to Americans that it was painful to watch. Take, for example, that scene where the character who works for the Stasi comes to his BARE apartment, where he lives ALONE, eates a plate of spaghetti with KETCHUP and invites a PROSTITUTE over to his apartment. I mean, how much more ridiculous than that can you get? And, of course, if a movie is so careless with the minor details, how can you expect it to deliver anything more reliable in terms of the big picture? The result is this unbearably cheesy Americanized fantasy about what life behind the Berlin Wall was like. A fantasy that has nothing to do with reality.
6 comments:
Don't complain. It is a very realistic movie. Compared to...
Right now they are advertising a new movie, soon to be shown in theatres, called "road back" or "road home" or something like that. Seems the script is as follows: in the 40s several people escape a Soviet prison camp somewhere in Siberia and then walk 4 thousand miles through various places, including Middle Asia and some mountains (I swear Himalayas were mentioned)...
Apparently, these must be the people convicted for "digging a tunnel from Bombay to London", on the Bombay side... Otherwise it is impossible to explain the vector of their "coming back"...
Yeah. . . That doesn't sound at all crazy. Sheesh, who is supposed to be the audience for that kind of thing?
I don't have a problem with any of those things, because all films are fantasy, even the "realistic" ones.
Concern with complete verisimilitude is usually only expressed strongly in relation to cinema, for some reason -- perhaps because it's a visual medium primarily and humans are so visual.
I treat all movies as fantasy, even in domains in which I know a great deal.
-Mike
The only reason why so many people went to watch this movie was because it was announced as a portrayal of the realities of Eastern Germany. If they had used Hyysys and Ksosiiss isntead of "Germany" and the "Stasi", nobody would have had any problem with the movie. Also, few people would have come to watch it.
This is just false advertisement and it's supposed to be illegal.
Mike, it is not that simple. Although those movies are indeed fantasies, they both feed off and reinforce the paradigms through which westerners see the world at large. And then the actions of the next generation of foreign policy makers (and the kids in the army) will be to certain extent influenced by those incorrect paradigms.
Can you bet me a dollar that, for example, a "True Lies" movie did not contribute to the image of Arabs as ruthless jihadists, who have to be terminated (it is a Schwarzenegger movie) or else, and is not responsible for unnecessary death of some Iraqis?
Exactly. Lenin recognized the huge brainwashing power of the cinema when he dubbed it the most important art form for his regime. You are sitting there, lost in the dark, while this huge screen (that now has surround sound or even 3D) is blaring at you. How many people can resist the illusion?
Post a Comment