The most overrated film of the latest Oscar.

Rating: 7/10 (22 December 2007)

It is overrated because critics talked about a poignant masterpiece, and it ended up being just a well-done yet trivial political drama. When it gets to the Academy, I have quite a lot to talk about. In this highly personal review, I have to discuss the Oscar thoroughly, since "The Lives of Others" won the 2007 award for Best Foreign Language Film, in a monstrously unfair prize. Have I seen all the other contenders? No, but I've seen one, that being "Pan's Labyrinth", and the quality of it is so superior to this overrated German production that the latter should't have even been nominated beside the former.
Don't get me wrong. This is not a bad movie. On the other side, all the buzz around it (the Academy Award, high scores at the IMDb site, superlative reviews) made me expect a flawless work of art, while this is just a good political drama. There are many average things in "The Lives of Others", enough to make it pretty much like a trivial movie. The screenplay has plenty of redundancies (the fingerprint, some over-explicative lines, the excessive ending), sign of a cowardice that aims for giving lazy audiences a circular, closed plot. Many explanations are passable, and most of them weaken the narrative, which could allow mystery and admittedly unanswered questions.
Another problem is the lack of rhythm of director Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck. The first hour is incredibly slow, focusing only in the spied couple, and, all of a sudden, things start to happen every minute, to maintain the grasp that wasn't achieved in the previous moments. Many of the plot twists are, as already cited, unnecessary, and some are pretty formulaic. For an example, the discovery of a character that knows about the wiretaps, and the encounter, where a plan unravels, is derivative from countless movies. Another case is that of Wiesler's trajectory: far from his unexplained fascination on Dreyman and Sieland, the big issue about his character is the ending. That kind of redemption is derivative as well, a huge copy of Hollywood's formula (here goes a hint for why the Academy gave the prize to the film)  and the last scene is so artificial that it almost ruins everything that was constructed until there.
While formulaic, trivial and occasionally exaggerated, the screenplay has its assets. Other characters, especially Sieland and Dreyman, have much better conclusions (and the latter's one is the best turning point of the movie, and a strong moment). On the other side, the distinct issue that Georg discovers, because of his friend's death, is not an easy choice to facilitate his decision to publish a critical article. Some dialogs are brilliant, like Wiesler's second interrogatory, which makes an elegant connection with previous lines and delivers tension and even frustration. More tense moments are unevenly scattered throughout the projection, but work wonders, thanks to Donnersmack's good direction, whose highlight is the deft use of the sound: the score is not only distinct, but well-placed. Silences are blended with noisy moments or clean dialogs, and the cork scene is the most relevant one: it marks the time when Wiesler has heard too much.
Wiesler hears all that he needs for his job, but it ends up being too much for his convictions. Something in him tells that the Stasi is wrong, and that Dreyman mustn't be stopped. Some part of him wants to save the couple from the closing menace, and the viewers are not given a straight reason. The best aspect of the screenplay is the unexplained motive, portraying, maybe, Wiesler's own doubt as to what makes him be so fond of those people. Mühe plays this role wonderfully, portraying the spy as a cold man at first (cold but not dead, since he is shown with a prostitute), without many emotions to show. Later, on the other side, his lack of expressions is used to hide feelings. Paradoxically, doubt and confusion are present in his blank face, as if he doesn't dare to feel anything before knowing what it is (the last scene, as bad as it is, confirms that), and that results in beautiful, long takes of his null expression.
Stealing the show every time, Ulrich is the very best cast member, but the others do not disappoint. Koch portrays Dreyman as a great defender of the party in the beginning, but his intellectual mind manages to find, in a strong sentiment of loss, the wit and courage to criticize the system he used to defend, and, ultimately, leaves the doubt: was he just faking his support to Communism, or did he truly believe at its leaders at first? Actually, this asset is more of the screenplay than of the actor, whose work is adequate, never outstanding. In Sieland's role, Gedeck has some beautiful moments, as a woman whose loyalty is always tested, and whose choices are not always altruistic. Her ambiguity appears as strong as Dreyman's, and relates to his in an elegant way. Two other important characters, Paul (Hans-Uwe Bauer) and Albert (Volkmar Kleinert), have small roles (too small, let's say), but amuse because of the first's subtle irreverence and for the second's subtle melancholy.
Had the screenplay tried to avoid stupid clichés, easy resolutions and over-explanation, this would have been a true comment-inducer. As it is, occasional assets cannot hide all the triviality that reigns over in the film. "The Lives of Others", curiously, was awarded for following some strict Hollywood rules, and not for being a respectfully distinct foreign film. It is just a good political drama, with some comment on the German History and decent character development. The Oscar shows again how intolerant it is, awarding a good movie while a truly masterpiece like "Pan's Labyrinth" is put aside because of its daring format. The Academy proves that it doesn't praise originality, nor even quality, but adequacy to its prehistorical single-mindedness.