Germany wouldn't be Germany if the success of one of its own at the Oscars -- this year, the victory of Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The Lives of Others") in the Best Foreign Film category -- didn't result in immediate controversy in all of the major newspapers.
Thus, to take one notable example, the civil rights activist Werner Schulz claims, in Die Welt, that the film does not deserve a prize, due to its cavalier attitude towards historical fact:
Steven Spielberg would've been picked to pieces worldwide if he had dreamed up Oskar Schindler and his list. Roman Polanski would've suffered similarly with the "Pianist" had he behaved the same. Iit seems that one can freely and imaginatively play with the history of the GDR with no attachment to historical authenticity. Thus a tough guy, a specialist for surveillance and a Stasi-leader, suddenly becomes a protector of dissidents.
On the other hand, Stefan Reinecke defends the film in today's taz:
"Das Leben der Anderen" is an intimate piece, far removed from the aesthetic of domination. It dissolves the cliche of the Stasi -- without whitewashing -- and makes possible a play of identifications. That is the key to success. Perhaps the naivete and obsessive curiosity of a bystander like Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck -- a West German who was 16 when the Wall fell -- was necessary in order to abandon the well-trodden path of the GDR-Stasi theme. Where, then, is the problem? In 2006 "Das Leben der Anderen" was not a German entry in the Berlin Film Festival. Why not? Why is it so difficult to recognize what is positive about this film? True, director von Donnersmarck is blessed with a level of self-confidence that is difficult to distinguish from hubris. But that's not the point. It has to do with a cultural-critical reflex that has long ago become routine -- namely that success must be mistrusted. A German thriller that also tells a political story is virtually guaranteed widespread suspicion.
Comments