How does “The Lives of Others” by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck from 2006 portray the psychological consequences of surveillance and oppression in the GDR through the three main characters?
Extended Essay in Language and Literature A
Word Count: 3936
1. Introduction
1.1 Historical Context
At the behest of the Soviet military administration, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) established a dictatorial regime in the former GDR, for whose preservation the SED subjected all areas of societal life to constant control and influence. Central to this was the State Security Service, or Stasi, which functioned as the SED’s surveillance and repression organ without parliamentary or administrative oversight. The Stasi employed a range of subtle methods against its own population to protect the state from loss of control.
At the Stasi’s Juridical Academy, it was taught how internal state enemies could be “decomposed”. Among the best-known decomposition measures against individuals were, in particular: staging professional failures (e.g., denial of education and employment), creating uncertainty and discipline (e.g., constant meetings with professional superiors), restricting freedom of movement (e.g., through travel bans), discrediting reputation (e.g., spreading rumours and false information), destroying private life (e.g., demonstrative day-and-night observations), and criminalisation for non-political offences (e.g., initiating investigations for customs or currency violations).1 It is estimated that 300,000 politically persecuted individuals in the former GDR were victims of decomposition measures.2 It will be interesting to identify the consequences of such decomposition measures through affected victims. Against this background, the title of this work emerged: How does “The Lives of Others” by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck from 2006 portray the psychological consequences of surveillance and oppression in the GDR through the three main characters?
1.2 Selection of the Key Figures
The three main characters of the film are placed at the centre of the following discussion: the writer Georg Dreyman, the theatre actress Christa-Maria Sieland, and the Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler. Dreyman and Sieland both become victims of targeted Stasi decomposition measures. Their behaviours reveal the psychological consequences of state surveillance and oppression measures. In contrast, Gerd Wiesler is the perpetrator; he is the one who employs surveillance and oppression methods against Dreyman and Sieland. However, even as a perpetrator, he experiences remarkable psychological consequences, different from those intended by the decomposition apparatus. These consequences are explored in detail in the main body.
An analysis of the interplay between the two victims and the perpetrator may also clarify how complex and unpredictable the effects of state repression on individuals can be. This forms a key focus of the main body of the work. This synthesis may yield insights into why even a state-organised abuse apparatus can be vulnerable. The film’s creator, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, said of his work: “It feels like it’s about the Stasi, about the GDR, but in fact, it’s about people in extreme situations.”3
The examination of the psychological consequences of surveillance and oppression remains relevant, as similar psychological impacts on the psyche of those affected can be observed in contemporary phenomena (e.g., loss of control due to cyberbullying or stalking). The film “The Lives of Others” helps to understand these effects in the historical context of the GDR and can serve as a basis for recognising parallels to modern societies. Max Wiedemann, the film’s producer, describes it as follows: “Florian tried to trace the feeling of truth, what it feels like when you can’t be sure … who you can still trust.” 4 This is addressed in the concluding remarks of this essay.
1.3 Notes on the Sources Used
The primary source for this work is the film “The Lives of Others”. A key basis for the film is an extended interview conducted by the director von Donnersmarck (2002) with Christoph Hein, who was a playwright in the GDR.5 The film itself is set at original locations in the former eastern part of Berlin, and props used by the Stasi for espionage work (e.g., listening devices) are employed; GDR music is heard.6 All this makes the film feel very realistic. An interview personally conducted by the author of this work with Max Wiedemann, the film’s producer, serves as a valuable source and provides deeper insights into the authentic portrayal of the psychological effects of a surveillance state.
Additionally, scientific studies on the Stasi’s decomposition measures and their psychological consequences for victims are consulted as secondary sources. These secondary sources are used to verify whether the psychological effects of decomposition measures depicted in the film are reliably portrayed. In the best case, this approach allows the topic of this work to be presented vividly, based not only on the film’s events but also substantiated by scientific evidence.7
2. Main Body
2.1 Brief Introduction to the Living Conditions of the Selected Figures
Dreyman and Sieland are a couple in love, trying to accommodate the GDR system as best they can for the sake of their careers. They live together in Dreyman’s flat in East Berlin. Their artistic world seems relatively intact despite state repression. However, a confrontation with the GDR authorities arises.
The GDR minister responsible for cultural affairs, Bruno Hempf, falls in love with Christa-Maria Sieland. Sieland is repulsed by the minister’s brazen advances but is coerced through blackmail and threats to destroy her artistic career. The minister sees Dreyman, her lover, as the only obstacle to their relationship. Minister Hempf wants to eliminate Dreyman as a rival. He tasks the Stasi with collecting incriminating material against Dreyman (“If you find something against him, you’ll have a very powerful friend in the Central Committee”8). Within the Stasi organisation, the loyal employee Captain Gerd Wiesler is chosen. With utmost diligence, Wiesler sets to work, bugging Dreyman’s flat, setting up a surveillance room in the attic of the building, and, together with another Stasi employee, logging the events in the flat twenty-four hours a day. Wiesler literally listens his way into “the lives of others”.
2.2 The Character Georg Dreyman / Path to Resistance
Victims of state surveillance and oppression describe their mental state as a feeling of “powerlessness” or “helplessness”.9 Added to this, according to the scientific work by Anne Maltusch titled “Long-Term Effects of Decomposition Measures by the Ministry for State Security”, is the impression of facing an overwhelmingly powerful enemy.10 Maltusch’s cited work provides a thorough and detailed examination of the long-term effects of Stasi decomposition measures. Maltusch prepared her study as part of a project funded by the Rostock University Medical Centre, which lends credibility to her work. It is particularly relevant as a source because it details the specific long-term health effects on victims, which also substantiate the psychological burdens of the selected characters in the film context.
Powerlessness and the feeling of helplessness can lead to so-called post-traumatic stress disorders in victims. Dreyman exhibits all these symptoms. At the beginning of the film, Dreyman still appears completely loyal to the regime (conversation between Wiesler and his superior, Stasi Lieutenant Colonel Grubitz: “He thinks the GDR is the most beautiful country in the world” 11). Then a change of heart occurs. Dreyman must watch as his friend, the director Jerska, becomes a victim of targeted Stasi decomposition measures. Jerska is banned from working for years by the Stasi and ultimately commits suicide (“What is a director who isn’t allowed to direct?” 12).13 This experience traumatically brings home to Dreyman that he too could become a victim of arbitrary interventions.
The quote “In 1977, our country stopped counting suicides. Self-murderers; that’s what they called them...” 14 reveals the despair and dehumanisation exerted by the GDR on its citizens. The term “self-murderers” emphasises the GDR’s attribution of blame to the victims and highlights its disregard for human suffering—an aspect that motivates Dreyman’s resistance.
Additionally, Dreyman is plagued by self-reproach (Dreyman about the deceased Jerska: “I should have done something” 15). When he finally learns of the relationship between his lover Sieland and Minister Hempf, he fully recognises his own powerlessness.16 It seems to him that he is helplessly at the mercy of the arbitrary state. Dreyman’s sense of isolation and powerlessness is evident when he states: “This flat is the last place in the GDR where I can say what I want without being punished.”17 The phrase “last place” symbolises his flat as the only refuge (seemingly) protecting him from state control, while “without being punished” hints at the constant threat of penalties for free expression. This clearly illustrates the deep despair and pressure that surveillance and oppression exert on his psyche, paving the way for Dreyman’s resolve to resist.
Overall, Dreyman’s reaction reflects what can be gleaned from scientific studies on the processing of GDR injustices. Repeatedly, it is noted how much victims are destabilised in their personality by arbitrary measures, leading to feelings of powerlessness and isolation from their environment. Opacity and the pressure of threats lead to psychological paralysis. However, strategies are occasionally described through which victims of arbitrariness can resist decomposition measures, developing defence mechanisms to preserve their personality. Individual biographical contexts play a decisive role here. The literature on the psychological consequences of decomposition measures in the GDR notes, for example:
“Some politically convinced opposition figures managed to perceive their interrogators, at least partially, as misguided individuals who themselves became victims of a dehumanising ideology. Others succeeded in enduring the ‘decomposing’ experiences through strong religious ties; here, the aggressors could sometimes be viewed in a context of reconciliation or forgiveness.”18
Dreyman’s character confirms these observations. As a prominent figure in the GDR, his social status and self-perception prevent him from succumbing brokenly to injustice. He actively resists by publishing an anonymised article for the Western magazine Der Spiegel about the frequency of suicides in the GDR. This is his strategy to process the experienced trauma without his personality suffering too much damage.19 Dreyman’s activism is also spurred by his social environment.20 During a party, he is confronted with the words: “At some point, you have to take a stand, otherwise you’re not human.”21
In the overall analysis, Dreyman appears as a symbol that one does not necessarily have to bow to state injustice. The affected individual always has multiple response options; the “human factor” remains a variable not fully calculable by state systems. The psychological paralysis intended by the Stasi does not occur in him; instead, the Stasi’s unjust methods lead him to actively resist the state regime.
2.3 The Character Christa-Maria Sieland / Trauma Until Death
Let us take a closer look at the theatre actress Christa-Maria Sieland. What surveillance and oppression methods of the Stasi is she subjected to, and how do these affect her psychologically? In the work by Anne Maltusch and Carsten Spitzer titled “Long-Term Effects of Decomposition Measures by the Ministry for State Security”, it is stated:22
“Particularly ‘decomposing’ is the personality-oriented approach. This means that the applied methods were always individually tailored to the target person. A multitude of efforts were therefore undertaken in advance to identify their weakest point and target it precisely. The MfS aimed to uncover personal characteristics and behaviours of the target person, especially those that could later be used for decomposition, in particular: fear, insecurity, addiction to recognition, need for validation, tendencies towards criminal behaviour, alcoholism, sexuality and other sexual deviations, collecting or gambling passions, efficiency, and dependence on medication.”
This is exactly what happens to Christa-Maria Sieland in the film. At the start of the film, Christa-Maria Sieland is a star in the GDR (Wiesler to Sieland: “You are a great artist”23). Nevertheless, her artistic ambition remains unchecked; she desperately wants to maintain her status. To recruit Sieland as an unofficial collaborator for the Stasi’s machinations, Stasi employees gather incriminating material against her.
The remark in the film addressed to Sieland, “They decide who gets played, who’s allowed to perform. You don’t want to end up like Jerska, and neither do I,”24 encapsulates the Stasi’s power over the lives and careers of artists. The statement “They decide” conveys a complete takeover of power by the Stasi, controlling even the most intimate aspects of their victims’ lives. Sieland spirals into insecurity. Her personality changes. The film includes the words: “An actor is never what they seem.”25 This refers to Sieland and highlights her inner turmoil.
The Stasi discovers that Sieland is addicted to pills, secretly obtaining psychotropic drugs illegally from a dentist. Her excessive ambition and (illegal) pill addiction make her particularly vulnerable. Health sciences have established that easy targets for the Stasi were individuals whose “weakest point” could be identified.26 In the end, it takes little to manipulate Sieland’s psyche to the point where she can be used as a tool against her lover, Dreyman. Her will is completely broken when she is briefly detained. In the scientific processing of the political traumatisation of Stasi victims, so-called “shock arrests” are described as a common method to destabilise target persons.27 This is what happens to Sieland. Her detention completely alters her psyche.
Trauma psychology explains the effects observed in Sieland as an unconscious regression to a childlike dependence on so-called primary objects from childhood. Vital ego functions are delegated to the perpetrator, leading to an unconscious attachment to them.28 This permanently alters personal relationship patterns, akin to brainwashing that turns everything upside down. Surveillance and oppression affect Sieland’s psyche exactly as the Stasi planned. The boundaries of her own self blur, and she loses her own will. She draws closer to her tormentors, which seems paradoxical but aligns with findings from political psychology (“Many prisoners reported that, after some time, they began to long for interrogations in a tormenting way”).29 Only in the face of her own death (Sieland is hit by a lorry on the street, appearing almost like a suicide) does her sense of reality return (Sieland’s final words to Dreyman: “I was too weak. I can never make right what I’ve done.”30). Ultimately, Sieland escapes into suicide.
This overall drama illustrates what science repeatedly highlights as a possible consequence of trauma chains: the suicide of the target person. The character of Sieland particularly demonstrates how credibly the film integrates into the scientific processing of the psychological consequences of oppression and surveillance from the GDR era.
2.4 The Character Gerd Wiesler / The Change of Heart
Let us turn to the third character, Gerd Wiesler, the (initially) loyal Stasi captain. In the context of the scientific processing of GDR injustices, he stands out distinctly.
The pressure exerted by the Stasi on those affected finds expression in the film: “During interrogations, you work with enemies of socialism—NEVER forget that!”31 The words “enemies of socialism” and “NEVER” reinforce an absolute, hostile stance that Wiesler and his colleagues internalise by viewing the surveilled as threats and dehumanising them. This manipulation initially leads to psychological rigidity in Wiesler. He appears as a compliant executive organ of the Stasi.
However, there is a pivotal moment in the film that turns the perpetrator Wiesler into a sympathiser with his victims. Zealous in his task (Wiesler to himself: “Time for bitter truths”)32, he sits daily in the attic of Dreyman’s building, meticulously recording every spoken word and intimacy of the residents. He immerses himself in the lives of Dreyman and Sieland, down to the deepest recesses of their souls. When Dreyman plays the “Sonata for a Good Person” on his piano after Jerska’s death, Wiesler exclaims: “Can someone who has heard this music, I mean truly heard it, still be a bad person?”33.
Wiesler evolves into the exact opposite of Sieland. While she, entangled in her ambition, sides with the Stasi, Wiesler turns away from it. Out of affection for the surveillance victims, Wiesler goes into internal resistance and does everything possible to protect Dreyman and Sieland. Wiesler becomes a defector. Psychologically, there is likely only one explanation. According to conscience research, humans live in at least two fundamental relationships: to themselves and to others. If the conscience is intact, one’s actions within these relationships are regularly reviewed and, if necessary, realigned. The Federal Constitutional Court defined a conscience decision in a 1961 ruling as “any serious moral decision, i.e., one oriented towards the categories of good and evil …, which the individual experiences inwardly as binding and unconditionally obligatory, such that they cannot act against it without distress of conscience.”34 This is evident in Wiesler. He discovers during his surveillance that Dreyman and Sieland do not embody evil; rather, he himself is acting on behalf of evil (the Stasi). This realisation captivates him, and, following his conscience, he is compelled to protect his victims. To this end, he actively intervenes in events multiple times, risking his Stasi career. Towards the end of the film, Wiesler comes under suspicion within the Stasi of not conducting his observation loyally (Grubitz to his subordinate Wiesler: “Are you still on the right side?”)35. As punishment, he is transferred to a monotonous post in mail surveillance.
In summary, Wiesler is the silent hero of the film. His conscience leads him to turn away from evil and towards good. This happens quietly but is utterly convincing to the film’s audience. As with Dreyman, the human factor is evident in Wiesler. Despite the Stasi’s attempts to keep him ideologically aligned, he breaks free and follows only one command: his inner voice. The psychological consequences of surveillance and oppression cannot be fully controlled even at the level of the perpetrators.
2.5 The Interplay of the Characters
Although the three selected characters are in different life situations, mutual psychological reactions arise between them. Examining these is worthwhile, as they may reveal—despite all complexity—psychological patterns in the context of surveillance and oppression.
First, there is the relationship between Dreyman and Sieland. While Dreyman initially remains more or less in his role as an unsuspecting victim, Sieland, for the sake of her career, defects to the Stasi. At the start, she, like Dreyman, assumes the victim role. Then she betrays her lover Dreyman to the Stasi. She quickly transitions from victim to perpetrator. This relationship development shows the effects achievable through manipulation tactics. State-induced fear and intimidation methods can lead people to act against their own convictions. Similarly, Sieland’s character illustrates how difficult it is to break out of the victim role. Such practices are proven means for totalitarian states to maintain power.
However, every totalitarian system has cracks through which light can shine. This role is symbolically assigned to Wiesler. Through his espionage, he develops sympathy for his surveillance victims, Dreyman and Sieland. This phenomenon is known in psychology as Lima Syndrome. The perpetrator begins to care for their victim and advocate for their well-being. They develop an emotional bond or identification with their victim. Thus, Wiesler tries to dissuade Sieland from succumbing to the temptation to cooperate with the Stasi. He seeks to alleviate her fear that the Stasi could prevent her from being a star (“You are already a star”36). The emotional bond with the victim is even more evident when Wiesler secretly removes the smuggled typewriter from Dreyman’s flat.
A veritable drama triangle develops in the relationships between the three characters, known as part of transactional analysis. For decades, psychology has studied the drama triangle phenomenon, where the perpetrator (often called the persecutor), victim, and rescuer—as here—take on shifting roles. It describes typical human behaviour in conflict situations. Participants in a triangle do not necessarily occupy only one role; they switch between roles. This is clearly visible in the three characters of the film. Dreyman transitions from a sympathiser to an opponent of the state. Sieland shifts from victim to perpetrator (against Dreyman). With Wiesler, it is the exact opposite; he transitions from perpetrator to victim of the Stasi (Wiesler is punitively transferred to a monotonous post). The supposedly weakest role in the triangle is that of the victim. They—like Sieland—are bombarded with humiliations and threats, which can create a strong sense of helplessness and powerlessness.37 Unconsciously, however, this is precisely what individuals in victim roles desire, as they attract significant attention as pitiable victims.38 Sieland, who so desperately craves her audience’s recognition, is the ideal candidate for the victim role. She fully fits the psychological pattern of the victim in the drama triangle.
Wiesler, on the other hand, emerges as Dreyman’s rescuer. Wiesler essentially leads a lonely life in insignificance. He has no intact social structure, no friends, no private company. In one scene, he hires a prostitute who, for payment, offers him some “affection” (Wiesler to the prostitute: “Stay with me a little longer”39). His surveillance of Dreyman and Sieland allows him—albeit perversely—to establish intimate social contact with the surveillance victims. He deliberately intervenes in events, giving him a sense of being needed interpersonally but also of superiority. This is typical of the rescuer role.40 This role opens the stage for him to escape insignificance and give his life an ethical purpose. These psychological consequences are clearly evident in Wiesler.
In the overall analysis, the interaction of the three characters appears as a textbook example of a psychological drama triangle. Although the roles of perpetrator and victim are initially clearly assigned, each character subsequently shifts from their designated position. This gives the film a psychological dynamism that is inescapable. The constant struggle between personal desires (Dreyman wants success as a writer, Sieland seeks recognition as an actress, Wiesler aims for investigative success) and ethical principles (humans have a conscience) is particularly vivid through these role shifts. This leaves a lasting impression on the film’s audience.
3. Conclusion
3.1 Summary
The film “The Lives of Others” impressively succeeds in answering the question of the psychological consequences of surveillance and oppression. It portrays the profound impacts on the characters, as analysed in the main body. Through careful character development and realistic depiction of state repression, it becomes clear how lasting such mechanisms shape the psyche of those affected. The consulted secondary literature additionally confirms how realistically the characters act as victims and, above all, how they move in a seemingly invisible relationship with each other (“drama triangle”).
3.2 Application of Findings to Contemporary Phenomena
Applying the above analysis of the psychological consequences of state arbitrary interventions (such as those of the Stasi) to today’s context reveals: While state-directed Stasi methods are not observed in Germany, the targeted use of threats and intimidation in the private sphere is noticeably increasing, even if not state-directed. The phenomenon of stalking causes, much like the application of Stasi methods, a negative impact on the victim’s freedom of movement. The victim is powerlessly subjected to surveillance and persecution. As with Sieland, the death of the stalking victim, often through suicide, is not uncommon. Similarly, mobbing—harassment and disparagement of individuals, often via social media—leads to a loss of control over one’s life, just as with the three depicted main characters of the film.
Summarising all the above findings, a reconciling insight from the film emerges. Every arbitrary state relies on people to execute its unjust methods. This is simultaneously its weakness, as the main body analysis illustrates. Perpetrators can defect to their victims, thereby making the arbitrary system vulnerable from within and potentially causing its collapse. As with the Stasi Captain Wiesler, the application of state repression is no guarantee that people will unconditionally carry it out. The individual’s conscience, their conception of good and evil, and the alignment of their actions with it cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. This is ultimately a profound concluding aspect derived from the film that applies to life as a whole.
4 References
Author of this text, and Max Wiedemann. Private Interview with Max Wiedemann. Exclusive interview with the producer Max Wiedemann. 5 November 2024.
“Decisions of the Official Collection - Volumes 10 to 19.” Federal Constitutional Court, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Entscheidungen/Liste/10ff/listenode.html;jsessionid=607FF6DB0BFC1DBF06F8D6D7C7360748.internet942. Accessed on 1 November 2024.
Henckel, Florian. “The Lives of Others. Book by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.” Suhrkamp Verlag, Suhrkamp Verlag, https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/florian-henckel-von-donnersmarck-das-leben-der-anderen-t-9783518459089. Accessed on 4 November 2024.
Henckel, Florian. “The Lives of Others Movie Script.” Scripts.com, Scripts, http://www.scripts.com/script/the_lives_of_others_12376. Accessed on 3 November 2024.
Henckel von Donnersmarck, Florian, director. The Lives of Others. 2006.
Hertzberg, Max. “Stasi Tactics – Decomposition.” Max Hertzberg, 28 November 2021, https://www.maxhertzberg.co.uk/background/politics/stasi-tactics/. Accessed on 9 November 2024.
“Journal Interview: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck - Director.” YouTube, 4 April 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuIgJTmLov4. Accessed on 9 November 2024.
Maltusch, Anne, and Carsten Spitzer. “Health-Related Long-Term Effects of SED Injustice.” Health-Related Long-Term Effects of SED Injustice, University Hospital - Jena, 12 June 2024, https://www.uniklinikum-jena.de/sedgesundheitsfolgen_media/Dokumente/open+access/Buch+1_4_Maltusch_+Spitzer-p-528.pdf. Accessed on 9 November 2024.
Schlosser, Vera. The Lives of Others | GDR in Film, https://ddr-im-film.de/de/film/das-leben-der-anderen. Accessed on 9 November 2024.
Trobisch-Lütge, Stefan. “Political Traumatisation in the Former GDR/SBZ and Its Processing in the (Post)Traumatic Space of Reunified Germany.” DruckTrobisch, Amnesty-heilberufe, https://amnesty-heilberufe.de/wp-content/uploads/374/n2006trobisch.pdf. Accessed on 6 November 2024.
Trödel, Lisa. “Drama Triangle: Understanding the Emergence of Conflicts Better.” HubSpot Blog, 25 November 2022, https://blog.hubspot.de/service/drama-dreieck. Accessed on 5 November 2024.
Wieser, Martin, and Moritz Michels. “From Hohenschönhausen to Guantanamo Bay: Psychology’s Role in the Secret Services of the GDR and the United States.” PubMed, 15 December 2017, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29244200/. Accessed on 2 November 2024.
Wilke, Manfred. “The Lives of Others – Wiesler’s Refusal | Germany Archive | bpb.de.” Federal Agency for Civic Education, 2 February 2012, https://www.bpb.de/themen/deutschlandarchiv/74952/das-leben-der-anderen-wieslers-verweigerung/. Accessed on 7 November 2024.
5 Appendix
Exclusive Interview with Producer Max Wiedemann:
Interviewer: What considerations led to the portrayal of the psychological effects of surveillance and oppression in the GDR?
Max Wiedemann: Well, the story was initially based on extensive research by Florian. It’s primarily a content-related question. As a producer, I’ve naturally had some contact with the content, but I can only indirectly convey what Florian developed back then. He worked on the screenplay for a very long time—I think it was four or five years of screenplay work alone. I’m just thinking if I can still find the press kit for The Lives of Others. Back then, we created a press kit with Disney, and I’ll check if I can find it, because it contains many answers about the background story that you can’t always read elsewhere. The portrayal, the way Florian depicted the surveillance system and ultimately brought it to life through the characters, was primarily based on intensive research. He spoke with many people—both so-called victims and perpetrators—and asked: “What was it like? How can you imagine it?” This created a picture in his mind that he then wanted to bring to life through the characters. He tried to trace the feeling of truth. A film is never the truth; it’s always fictional and invented. But Florian tried to capture the feeling of truth, what it feels like to live in a repressive state. What it feels like when you can’t be sure who you’re telling something to or who you can still trust. There were 500,000 unofficial collaborators in the GDR—with 15 million inhabitants. Imagine that. That means you would have had people in your circle of friends and acquaintances who regularly reported to the Stasi about what their friends and neighbours were doing. That’s sick.
Interviewer: How did historical sources influence the portrayal of the characters, particularly Dreyman, Sieland, and Wiesler?
Max Wiedemann: There were no historical characters. No character in the film is based one-to-one on a real existing person. It’s not a biographical story. Of course, snippets from partial biographies were incorporated, forming an overall picture, but nothing where you could say: “This character was this or that person.”
Interviewer: How did you shape the psychological changes in Wiesler to make them comprehensible and believable to the audience?
Max Wiedemann: There’s this one moment when he hears the “Sonata for a Good Person”. That’s his turning point. But in that moment, he’s actually only completing a development that has a long history. As with most things in life, you don’t change from one second to the next; it’s a journey where many influences affect you and change your worldview. That’s how it is in the film too. Through intensive surveillance, he becomes part of the lives of those surveilled, and this life he so deeply penetrates leads him to gradually question his previous convictions. As with most things, it’s a gradual process that doesn’t happen from one moment to the next.
Interviewer: How do you see the relevance of the depicted psychological mechanisms and decomposition methods in relation to modern forms of oppression, for example, in Iran or China?
Max Wiedemann: Very important. Today, the technological component has taken on a completely different dimension. Back then, surveillance was already at a high technical level. Countless flats, hotels, and public spaces were bugged, and the effort was immense—at the highest level for that time. Regimes like Iran, China, or North Korea today employ similar efforts with the technical means available to them. In China, there’s the Social Credit System, where every person has a virtual file. If you cross a red light a few times too many, you might not get flight tickets anymore. If you’re wanted in China, it takes an average of seven minutes to find you—thanks to cameras installed everywhere. This makes surveillance even more effective and, in the hands of an unjust state, more dangerous to people’s freedom. But behind these machines are people, just like in the GDR back then. Therefore, the motivation for why a state monitors its own citizens is at least as relevant today as it was then.
Interviewer: What message do you want to convey to a contemporary audience with the film, particularly regarding resistance to state oppression?
Max Wiedemann: The message is aimed at two groups: on the one hand, resistance against state oppression; on the other hand—and this has always fascinated me about the story—it’s about someone who is on the “wrong” side and chooses what is morally right. There are many heroic stories of people who heroically stand up against an overwhelmingly powerful force. But it’s almost a greater challenge when you’re on the wrong side and decide against your own convictions. I wish for a world where many people on the wrong side realise it’s never too late to change their minds.
Interviewer: Very interesting, thank you very much!
Footnotes:
1 Anne Maltusch/Carsten Spitzer, Long-Term Effects of Decomposition Measures by the Ministry for State Security, page 98 f.; further: Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, Psychological Consequences to This Day: “Decomposition” Victims of the GDR Secret Police.
2 Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, Political Traumatisation in the Former GDR/SBZ and Its Processing in the (Post)Traumatic Space of Reunified Germany, page 171.
3 Journal Interview: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck - Director https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuIgJTmLov4 (6:56 minute).
4 Transcript of the interview with Max Wiedemann on 7 November 2024.
5 Guest contribution by Christoph Hein, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24 January 2019.
6 Available at https://ddr-im-film.de/.
7 The topic remains challenging, as a summary by Max Hertzberg from 2021 illustrates: “It’s easy to get lost in the analysis of the techniques used by the Stasi, and the more you engage with it, the more terrifying it becomes.” (Note: translated from English); Stasi Tactics – Decomposition, available at https://www.maxhertzberg.co.uk/background/politics/stasi-tactics/.
8 00:10:16 Film minute.
9 Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, op. cit., page 181, describes these consequences as “secondary trauma complexes”.
10 Anne Maltusch/Carsten Spitzer, op. cit., page 99.
11 00:06:13 Film minute.
12 00:26:06 Film minute.
13 Anne Maltusch/Carsten Spitzer, ibid., page 100: “The Stasi staged the complete loss of control of citizens over their own lives, knowingly accepting psychological disorders and suicides.”
14 01:04:56 Film minute.
15 01:13:20 Film minute.
16 The destruction of fundamental relationship experiences was one of the decomposition measures used by the Stasi to destabilise the victim, see: Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, op. cit., page 175.
17 01:16:06 Film minute.
18 Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, op. cit., page 182. https://amnesty-heilberufe.de/wp-content/uploads/374/n2006trobisch.pdf
19 As Stefan Trobisch-Lütge writes, such defence strategies were rarely successful for victims, op. cit., page 182.
20 Support from friends who share the same understanding of the political situation was the most effective way to counter the Stasi (Note: translated from English); Max Hertzberg, Stasi Tactics – Decomposition, available at https://www.maxhertzberg.co.uk/background/politics/stasi-tactics/.
21 00:30:28 Film minute.
22 Anne Maltusch/Carsten Spitzer, op. cit., page 100.
23 1:01:40 Film minute.
24 00:56:07 Film minute.
25 01:00:15 Film minute.
26 Anne Maltusch/Carsten Spitzer, op. cit., page 100.
27 Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, op. cit., page 175.
28 Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, op. cit., page 176.
29 Stefan Trobisch-Lütge, op. cit., page 176.
30 01:50:34 Film minute.
31 00:04:32 Film minute.
32 00:40:30 Film minute.
33 00:51:20 Film minute.
34 BVerfGE 12, 45, 55.
35 01:38:12 Film minute.
36 1:01:54 Film minute.
37 Lisa Trödel, Drama Triangle: Understanding the Emergence of Conflicts Better, as of 20.01.2023, https://blog.hubspot.de.
38 Lisa Trödel, op. cit.
39 00:54:13 Film minute.
40 Lisa Trödel, op. cit.
