A defining moment for a good man in the midst of corruption.

Rating: 10/10 (21 March 2008)

While the credits begin to roll, and as Captain Wiesler's (Ulrich Müle) face - transformed by muted joy - fades to black, I pondered, for a long time, the sheer brilliance of this finely crafted narrative from an equally brilliant first-time writer/producer/director, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.
This film is positive proof that, for the most part, it is the story that makes or breaks. That's not to say this film is without flaw; but, I'll come to that below.
Fade in starts in 1984 - a nicely ironic touch, I thought, given that the setting is the police state of the GDR  East Germany before the Berlin Wall came down. Wiesler is employed as an interrogator with the East German State Police, or Stasi. In the first few minutes, you witness his cold, calculated finesse in destroying a prisoner's claims of innocence. So also, you learn that Wielser is as cold as the state that produced him, perhaps colder than the concrete walls that house the hapless prisoners. Real joy is apparently beyond Wiesler's ken; his only smile is when he knows he's trapped his prisoner in a tissue of lies.
His superior, Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur), knowing Wiesler's expertise, gives him a new task: dig up some dirt on one of the state's favorite sons  Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch), a playwright and novelist of international repute who still manages to toe most of the Party line. Or does he?
Grubitz, however, has a hidden agenda: he wants damaging evidence against Dreyman because his superior, the lecherous Minister Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thieme) lusts after Dreyman's girl friend, Christa-Maria (Martina Gedek), a well-known and acclaimed stage actress. Wiesler, initially unaware of that tangle, jumps at the chance because he knows such a high-profile case will help his career along. Or so he thinks...
Hence, Dreyman's apartment is bugged and then monitored by Wiesler and his assistant, Udo (Charly Hübner), from a hidden loft at the top of the apartment block; and so 24/7, they begin to listen to the everyday lives of others. And, in doing so, something happens to Wiesler: he becomes interested, curious, inquiring, concerned and finally involved directly. Thus, his transformation from a cold automaton under state socialism into an engaged and sympathetic human being begins...and is, I think, also a metaphor for the transformation of the GDR later, when the Wall comes down.
These are the times that I wish I knew German better. The sub-titles, however, are very good. Hence, don't be deterred: this is an unhurried story that is told with a minimum of words with the camera in medium close-up and close-up for much of the time, thus allowing the actors to let their emotions say what words often cannot.
The plot itself is completely linear, each scene naturally following, so there is little chance of confusion for the viewer. Hence, when the tension comes, you're ready for it; when an ironic twist occurs  and there are many - you immediately know why, and either smile, cry or cringe; when tragedy strikes, you almost know it was going to happen anyway. But, it is at the end, when Dreyman and Wiesler both realize, at different times, the common thread that binds them irrevocably, that the full impact of the title hits: when you come to know the lives of others, you come to know yourself for who and what you are. So only the hardest of hearts will turn away from the thrill, the sheer joy, which lights up Wiesler's face as the final scene fades to black. That ironically beautiful ending, I'm sure, will be much discussed, debated and admired for years, if not generations, to come.
As Wiesler, Ulrich Müle, with a striking resemblance to Anthony Hopkins, is simply outstanding; his performance is flawless. This is his movie, no question, despite the quality of the rest of the cast. Equally, the cinematography, direction and editing are first class. Moreover, it's quite obvious also that the production was not expensive, attesting to the fact you don't need a lot of money to craft a brilliant story and film. In that regard, the Cohen brothers' first film, Blood Simple (1984) comes to mind as a (lesser) comparison.
And the flaw? Perhaps not so much a flaw as two narrative quirks: why was it relatively easy, in the Dreyman case, for Wiesler to throw off years of loyalty to the party and the state? Perhaps it was just the straw that broke the camel's back? And, while listening to others' lives, why does Wiesler go to the trouble of typing up a concurrent report summary instead of using tapes to record all the conversations and do the typing later? It seemed such a backward step, operationally, because he was so used to recording his interrogations of prisoners. I have some ideas, but I'll leave you to sort out your own.
Some may complain about the length (137 min); others may yawn at what they consider to be unnecessary scenes. In my opinion, however, there's not a wasted shot, frame or scene: this is filming and story telling at its best, and deservedly won the Academy Award 2007 for Best Foreign Film.
As a final point, this story is  perhaps unintentionally - also an obvious and timely warning about the excesses that any state, regardless of politics, can initiate and maintain in the name of national security.