Representation of censorship in ‘Good bye, Lenin!’

‘Good bye, Lenin!’ is without any doubt one of the most famous movies ever produced on the topic of the Berlin Wall and the separation of eastern and western Germany. However, these topics are not what is highlighted in the movie. ‘Good bye, Lenin!’ is mainly a movie that focuses on the construction of discourse in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In this light, the movie is very interesting to analyze in the context of censorship. The construction of discourse and the usage of censorship in the GDR are not shown directly in their original form in ‘Good bye, Lenin!’ Rather, the whole process of it is packed in a metaphor on a much smaller scale, it is narrowed from the Socialist Unity party of Germany to one tiny room in an apartment building and a few individuals residing in the GDR.

The story starts with a family of four, living in Eastern Germany: a married couple with two children, one son – the protagonist of the movie, mostly watched through a 3d person perspective, but on some occasions he takes the role of narrator as well – and one daughter. The father in the family gets at odds with the regime and flees to the West, to the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of the risk involved, the mother did not want to follow her husband with to children and stays in the GDR. As her son Alexander, the main character, describes as a narrator, eventually his mother became a passionate socialist activist and “married the communist party” as a sort of replacement of her husband.

Some general aspects of censorship by government are shown in the movie, such as television broadcasts focused on praising the communist party and spreading the ideology, extensively celebrating the GDR anniversary by means of military parades, and more of these characteristics. One of them is the violent suppression of a mass protest in favor of more freedom of press, in which Alexander participates. Accidentally, his mother is passing by the protest and sees her son protesting against the regime that she is so passionate about. She suffers from a heart attack at this moment and ends up in a coma. When she wakes eight months later, the GDR has collapsed, but she doesn’t know. The doctor who observes her tells Alexander that she cannot be exposed to any excitement, because she won’t survive a second heart attack.

Alexander decides that it is impossible for his mother to discover what has happened to her love, the GDR. He takes her home to their apartment and builds a scene with the purpose to isolate her from the truth of the reunited Germany and the victory of capitalism over communism. It proves an intensive job to censor the whole world for his mother, but to prevent her from dying, he puts all possible effort in it. He goes to all kinds of places to get his hands on some food from GDR brands, he convinces a bunch of friends to cooperate with his play at his mother’s birthday and together with a friend, he records his own news broadcasts on tape to show on his mother’s TV.

As I mentioned in the introduction, the process of censorship in the GDR is simplified in ‘Good bye, Lenin!’ by mimicking it on a much smaller and more mundane scale. At a certain point in the movie, Alexander calls the situation “our little society” as something completely isolated from the outside world. Despite the fact that Alex has to hide certain things from his mother, such as an ordinary TV or radio, any clothing from non-GDR brands, and more, the major part of his efforts is dedicated to constructing his own truth, e.g. by recording video tapes, searching the city for food from GDR brands, organizing a ‘play’ with other people on occasions such as his mother’s birthday, etc. The bigger image that this shows is a point made by professor Michael Holquist, namely that “censors intend to construct rather than prohibit” (Holquist). In other words, active censorship is much more important than passive censorship.

One of the main characteristics of the phenomenon of censorship is to distort the truth. Obviously, it is impossible to change the truth, but manipulating it in a certain interest is not. When Alexander realizes that due to his censorship, his own truth is something completely different from his mother’s truth, he reflects on this by saying: “truth was a rather dubious concept, easily adapted […].” The irony here is that Alexander himself was an adversary of the GDR and that he participated in street protests, and when the GDR had fallen, he was the one who was so to speak taking over the role of the communist party by recreating this GDR for his mother.

An interesting scene in the movie in the light of censorship are the part where Alexander has fallen asleep when he is on a visit to his mother’s room, and she escapes from the room, goes outside and sees the real world, that shows her e.g. cars from the FRG and IKEA billboards. She has seen the real truth, so Alexander cannot hide it from her anymore. What he comes up with is another self-made news broadcast tape, in which some footage from the opening of the borders between East and West is shown, but supported by the message that the GDR has opened these borders to house refugees from the FRG, as an escape from the miserable capitalist world. This is a perfect example of Roman Jakobson’s communication model, where the sender conveys a message to the receiver, but the context, channel and code matter as well. In this case, the context of the message is completely reversed by the channel – Alexander’s tape  – through which it is conveyed. Later on in the movie, the same thing happens when Alexander decides to bring an end to his self-made GDR by showing his mother the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of eastern and western Germany, but telling her that this was an initiative by the GDR.

As a final remark, I want to compare Alexander’s censorship to censorship that state governments have exercised throughout history. The censorship that Alexander exercises on his mother in ‘Good bye, Lenin!’ is in the interest of the health and well-being of his mother, because she wouldn’t survive the ‘real truth’. In my eyes, this is a clear metaphor for the motives that certain state governments or leaders have expressed to be driven by when applying censorship: it is all in the interest of the safety and welfare of the society, which makes a nice bridge to my own research project on the prohibition of distributing Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ in certain countries in the world: is this is also in the interest of well-being and safety?

Works Cited

Holquist, Michael. “Corrupt Originals: The Paradox of Censorship.” PMLA 109.1 (1994): 14–25. Print.