Character development

Rating: 9/10 (20 November 2009)

I have already found a lot of useful comments on this film, so my intention is not to repeat those comments. For me, this movie was really good, so I am a follower of the positive reviews I have read.
What I would like to do, is comment on the negative reviews I have read about the character development, and in particular the role of Ulrich Muhe (Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler).
A lot of people state that the transition from a very strict Stasi agent to the helpful 'friend' isn't realistic and human. When you look at how extremely strict and haunting the man was beforehand, he just couldn't turn into a good guy all of a sudden, they say.
I disagree with that. When you look at it from a psychological point of view, it makes clear sense to me. It is very well known that just before a person admits his wrongdoing, he is at his most extreme in denying it! The more he is confronted with the fact that his methods are unethical, the more he will try to find arguments to defend his methods. A great example of this is the scene where the student in Wiesler's class comments on the brutal interrogations Wiesler has pulled off. Wiesler answers by saying that this is just the way things go in the DDR, and that the student better get used to that.
Another example of why the transformation of Wiesler is so credible, is the fact that he hasn't got a life of his own. This is perfectly illustrated by the scenes in Wiesler's home. Every evening he returns to his home, finding it empty. He cooks (awefull) for himself and orders prostitutes to satisfy his sexual needs. In that particular scene he even asks the prostitute to stay longer. This illustrates even more how lonely the poor guy is. Also, this loneliness and 'lack of own life' perfectly illustrate the title of this movie. Wiesler doesn't have a life of his own, and therefore 'lives the life of others' when he's sitting in the attic listening to the lives that happen beneath him.
A final argument for the credibility of the transition is the piano play Georg Dreyman plays after his good friend, the director and writer Albert Jerska, dies: 'die Sonate vom guten Menschen' or 'The sonata of good people'. This is the key moment for the transition. Wiesler then perfectly realizes that his work is pointless and unethical. That by doing it, he will never become a good man, and will never have a worthy life of his own. He is confronted with the rich life of the poets and artists, and discovers how beautiful a normal and free life can be. From that point on, he changes radically, and decides that he is no longer a part of an unethical, inhuman system. To me, this all perfectly fits.
In my opinion this is one of the best movie in years. And I hope that I have offered clear arguments on why the transformation of Wiesler is not a wrong and unrealistic move, but instead a great enrichment of the movie.