The German production ‘Goodbye Lenin’ directed by Wolfgang Becker and
released in 2003 is set a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and
follows the hectic development of German Society during the first months in the
aftermath of such event. Nominated and granted the most prominent awards across
the European film scene, ‘Goodbye Lenin’ also received strong positive reviews
across the Atlantic. The American-based review website “Rotten Tomatoes” rated
“Goodbye Lenin” with a 90% out 100%, followed by the nomination to the Best
Foreign Film in the Golden Globes. Such positive reception foretells an
extraordinary portrayal of the creation of a collective memory to make up for
the loss of stability in a transitory period.
Relying on a limited number of indoor and outdoor settings, the film
narrows down the experience of two generations of East Germans to one only
family composed of a strongly ideological mother and two children. The mother,
Christiane falls into comma days before the GRD collapses and the communist way
of living casts into oblivion. Whilst Christine, the mother, remains in an
isolated hospital room, the society outside the walls undergoes dramatic and
drastic changes, Christiane due to her strong faith in Communism, could not
have been able to conceive. Yet, not only does the outside world move towards a
radically different dimension, but the family Christiane brought up under
strong communist principles, does also shift towards a new direction. Yet a
real improvement in the family standards of living when Capitalism arrives is hardly
recognizable. In the aftermath of the fall Christiane’s daughter, abandons
university and starts to work in a chain that represents the epitome of
Americanization: McDonald’s, and Alex, the second child of the family continues
to work in an electricity company that now, lives up to fate the selection of
East Germany employees. The intimate portrait of the daily life of this family
might be seen to underlie subtle criticism towards the reduction of the
individual under these two antagonistic regimens. Starting with a violently
repressed protest by the GDR state forces, that drive Christiane to an
eight-month-coma, the movie depicts the frustrated American dream the average
citizen experiences under the umbrella of Capitalism.
Beyond the political references, the film is centered on the concept of
self-censorship as a method to construct a collective memory to anchor
ourselves in a world characterized by an increasing instability of time and the
fracturing of lived space. When the mother wakes up from comma, Alex fears she
would discover the truth of what happened to the system she committed to, the
GDR. To mask reality, Alex builds a fantasy set in his mother’s bedroom where
any element of an unwelcoming outside reality is being censored. Alex embarks
in what the scholar A. Huyssen describes as an obsessive process of
“musealization” (27). By taking hold of
cans, tins, clothes, furniture… from the GDR, Alex aims at stopping the passing
of time. The objects Alex obsessively collects to can be understood as what the
scholar Huyssen quoting Lubbe describes as lieux
de mémoire, that is, elements that offer “traditional forms of cultural
identity to a destabilized modern subject” (33). Such banal objects become reminiscences
of a passed epoch that compensate for the loss of shared and communal identity.
The anxiety behind Alex’s daily dumping
diving trip in seek of the rests of the former GRD does not only represent
his desire to protect his mother, but it gradually becomes an identity
reconstruction for himself. Alex embodies a whole generation of Germans who are
required to forget and forced to embrace a new identity that was and
artificially constructed by external conditions, and enforced upon them. The
reality Alex creates for his mother becomes a fantasy that both Alex and
Christiane use to secure their fragmented identities. Yet, I must pinpoint such
a bitter reality, is depicted with serenity and compassion. The camera follows
the daily steps of a son who carefully takes care of his mother.
In order to protect his mother from an outside incomprehensible reality,
Alex becomes immersed in a process of prohibition that turns into an active
process of construction. By censoring Christine’s reality, Alex creates a myth,
that merges the reality that used to be, that of the GDR he grew up in,
together with his dreams and expectations of a reality that never was,
projecting these images into a supra-reality where the real and the fiction
come together. The particularity of such proactive censorship seems to be
clearly depicted in a scene that follows the mother’s first contact with the
outside. Alex falls asleep when he is on a visit to his mother’s bedroom. The
mother goes outside and encounters cars from the FRG and IKEA billboards. Alex
covers-up the truth by broadcasting a self-made piece of news where such
contact between East and West is argued to be a GDR initiative to welcome those
who flee capitalism. Such lie proves to be Alex’s deep desire as
While looking out of the living room window, and staring at the cars, Alex
sighs and claims, “I wish this was what really
happened”.
Such climax scene does also raise a new question ‘Goodbye Lenin’ skillfully
succeeds in portraying, that of the fear of the unknown. The fantasy Alex has
created for her, enable Christina to continue to live outside the truth she
censored her children from. Several months passed after Christiane wakes up
from comma before she is able to confess to her children, their father never
died, and was waiting for them in the West. The fear of an unwelcoming and
alien environment stopped Christiane from meeting up with his husband, “marrying”
the communist state in substitution for the loss. By censoring the truth to her
children, Christiane build a new family framework that enables her to overcome
the fear that stopped her from going towards the unknown. Here again, the
censor is not only restricting the truth, but actively involved in a process of
discourse creation that enables the censor’s self-identification in first
place.
In short, ‘Goodbye Lenin’ excels at portraying the obstacles of regimen
transition from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen.
Works cited
Good Bye Lenin! Dr. Wolfgang
Becker. Perf. Daniel Brühl, Katrin Saß, Maria Simon, and Chulpan Khamatova. X
Verleih AG, 2003. Film.
In maneuvering between a nexus of happenings, this review has uncovered some profound psychological implications of censorship and social transformation in the film Good bye Lenin! I particularly enjoyed the way in which the personal motives of protagonists, Alexander and Christiane, were explored, and the recognition of censorship for the sake of protection and pure son-mother endearment. The exposition of new theory in the form of "musealization" and 'lieu de mémoire' were also points of significant interest to me. Conversely, I feel that these theoretical terms could've been explained in more detail and also linked to the larger theme , the structure of the review could've been consolidated in a stronger fashion, and I was slightly underwhelmed by the single sentence conclusion buffered onto the end of the review.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the capitalist paradigm to have hit East Berlin tipped the family portrait towards a "reduction of the individual" is a very interesting observation. The irony of such, how the individual is hollowed out in both a western liberal capitalist and a Eurasian socialist regimen, may have merited in itself an association to censorship. In both paradigms, this oppression of individuality persists. This bodes the question as to whether the political protest depicted towards the film in the name of freedom of speech was executed without ultimate reason.
Harking back to the notions of "musealization" and 'lieu de mémoire', discussed in paragraph 3, I would like to reiterate the significance of these within the wider context of the theme of memory. In terms of musealization, a term typically used to describe the cession of artefacts from one cultural environment, and exhibiting them in another, the idea that the political paradigm change symbolises this transferal from one cultural environment to another, Christiane's and Alexander's apartment being the museum, is an interesting analogy. The 'lieux de mémoire' as stated, consist of the objects sought after by Alexander in his quest of convincing his mother. In this sense, Alexander assumes the role of a sort of curator, salvaging these 'lieux de mémoire' to construct a convincing freeze-frame of his and his mother's memory (Holtorf).
Considering the material discussed throughout the review and Alexanders situation in general, I would argue that the final sentence conclusion is slightly inaccurate. Alexander's circumstances are rather exceptional and don't necessarily represent that of the ordinary citizen.
Holtorf, Cornelius. "Sites of Memory." Sites of Memory. University of Toronto, 05 May 2002. Web. 05 Apr. 2015. <https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/2.6.html
Funny enough, I also did my review on the self-censorship in Good Bye Lenin. However, the approach you are taking is completely different. Studying how self-censorship is used as a defensive method to protect oneself against external threat to one's identity is very interesting. By reading your review we can clearly see the thorough thought process behind it. You are also doing an excellent job introducing us to this new concept of musealization and applying it to the storyline of Good Bye Lenin.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I found disappointing that you do not focus on this subject only. You found a very interesting approach which you already well developed. Yet you still introduce external notions that, I believe, obscure the “goal” of your review. Yes, certain sentences add a depth to your essays : “The intimate portrait of the daily life of this family might be seen to underlie subtle criticism towards the reduction of the individual under these two antagonistic regimens.” would be a great starting point for a future essay on how States' interests affect Society at the individual level.
However the fear of the unknown you talked about in your last paragraph was not a necessary addition. You were able to link it to the rest of the article in the end. Yet, it would have been more efficient to directly focus on how Christine censored her family and thus created a new identity for both her and her family. You could have studied this part of the movie more in depth. For example, how did the children, and more particularly Alex, fight against this forced identity. Only to reproduce, in the end, the same phenomena with his mom. Then, your theory of self-censorship used to construct a collective memory (and one's self-identity), gains a new depth.
Lastly just a structural remark : you are quite descriptive of the storyline, especially at the beginning. Maybe could you have summarized it slightly more in order to have more place to develop your argumentation.
Overall your review was quite good : it was weakened by the length of certain sentences as well as unnecessary additions. It is counterbalanced by your well thought out theory and properly developed argumentation. Moreover, you very subtlety open up possibilities of new research questions. I really enjoyed reading your review. You made me see Good Bye Lenin from a whole new point of view.