The Lives of Others

I saw The Lives of Others yesterday and found it a remarkable film. German cinema has undergone, not just a renaissance but a complete regeneration. Germany's history in the last 100 years offers an unparalleled cinematic resource; the rise and fall of Nazism, its postwar fracture into two separate countries, one an economic powerhouse reshaped by an alliance of Western Europe and the US, the other its polar opposite, a Communist state firmly rooted within the Eastern Bloc led by Soviet Russia, then the fall of the Berlin Wall, actual and metaphorical the symbol of the division between the two countries and reunification. German cinema in the 1920s was thrillingly innovative, and many brilliant film-makers fled Nazism in the 1930s to invigorate and revolutionise Hollywood.
German cinema suffered badly from Nazism; Goebbels twisted and warped its entire structure and it took decades to recover. Herzog and Fassbinder were major filmmakers but were mavericks, exceptional individuals. Recently, however, German cinema has undergone a major renaissance, starting with Run, Lola, Run, which was energetic, innovative and very entertaining.
Since then we have had Downfall and Goodbye Lenin among others, and now this, which has to be counted as a major achievement. How many other national cinemas have taken such a pitiless and searching look at their recent past? British cinema has had a few notable successes, but it still seems mired in 'heritage' - concerned with the look of the film at the expense of the content. Though I did think The Queen was a useful, interesting and entertaining look at Britain in the last few years and Mirren has thoroughly deserved all her awards.
But this was something else - I found it a haunting and satisfying film that certainly raised questions. I know that East Germans have found the concept of a renegade Stasi officer extrremely implausible and have criticised the film for what they see as its entirely unbelievable premise, that a Stasi officer could, would be able to and would want to undermine an investigation. But this, I think misunderstands the film, which is only doing what films have always done - ask 'what if?'
The final scene had the beauty of a rewarding and satisfying conclusion and a nearly full house went away deep in discussion. Certainly our small party argued furiously about it and I know the film has been the subject of furious controversy amongst many ex-East Germans. I love films which leave you thinking and talking - certainly I went to sleep that night haunted by Ulrike Muhe's extraordinary eyes, described by one reviewer as having the ‘the baneful expression of someone haunted by a premonition of future sorrow’.

An addenda (June 16th). I've just read an article about 'endings' by Thomas Sutcliffe in yesterday's Independent in which he singles out the final scene in The Lives of Others as the perfect example of what he means. In an article about the final episode of The Sopranos which has just been broadcast in the US he talks about those occasions when 'the merit of a film or television series crowds into its final seconds..the screen equivalents of Geoff Hurst's 1966 World Cup goal, crossing the line even as the referee is inhaling to blow the final whistle'. In The Lives of Others 'a man smiles - the faintest smile, and only detectable as such because he's been essentially expressionless for the previous two hours. And yet that fleeting moment of warmth reshapes nearly everything that's gone before, enriching the moral texture of the film'. I've quoted Sutcliffe at length because I really couldn't have put in any better - it's a perfect ending and people flooded out of the cinema buzzing.