Repressive and protective means of censorship in
“Goodbye Lenin” – A Film Review
The German
tragicomedy „Goodbye Lenin”, directed by Wolfgang Becker in 2003, is a
representation of censorship of various ranges both the state and the personal
level. The film introduces the audience into the times of change in Eastern
Germany shortly before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Next to the
repressive censorship by the communist regime that is portrayed as violent and
oppressive against its citizens during a demonstration for free press, the
family drama also examines different shades and consequences of private
censorship. It portrays the communist woman Christiane who falls into coma for
eight month while the world outside the hospital room undergoes fundamental and
rapid change as a consequence of the fall of the Berlin wall. Although she
still notices the first upheavals against the repressive communist regime that
she defends, the regime fall, German reunification and all related changes
occur during her absence in coma. When she wakes up and the impacts of
capitalist reunification advance rapidly in Eastern Germany, her son Alex
decides to hide the fall of the communists by pretending the continuation of
the GDR regime. Being worried about Christiane’s instable health status, he
does so in collaboration with his sister to protect their mother from a heavy
shock that could cause serious health impacts. By creating a false image of the
present and lying at their mother to avoid any health risks, it becomes clear
that the children’s censorship and influence on Christiane’s perceptions are
aimed to protect her. Furthermore, a scene towards the end of the film reveals
that also Christiane has also shaped the children’s perception by creating a
false image of their father. When she reveals that the reason for his
disappearance was not another woman but her failure to follow his escape, one
realizes that her frustration of the father’s ostensibly bad character and her
ambitions for the communist state are rooted in being left defenseless to a
system that destroyed her private life. Censoring the true situation to her
children as well as her sudden conviction and engagement for the state in which
her children (have to) grow up may thus be interpreted as a means to protect
her children from becoming critical and feeling equally powerless and
frustrated by the political restrictions. This is implied in Christiane’s reply
to Alex’ criticism on state officials: “And you? What do you want to do?
Emigrate? Continue!”. Consequently, both kinds of censorships that apply within
the family are aimed to protect the respective other.
Moreover,
the film skillfully underlines the fragility of a world that is based on
censorship and lies. Firstly, this becomes clear when Alex and his sister
realize the dimensions of their censorship which requires increasingly growing
lies (Alex: “The moment I had covered one leak, the next one sprang up.”). Not
only do they have to shield Christiane mentally from all outward influences
(e.g. by inviting children who sing the GDR progress song for her birthday) but
also the physical shielding from the capitalist influences becoming
increasingly visible in their surrounding poses an increasingly tricky
challenge. One sees a gradual increase from first only adopting the previous
clothing style, then inventing a television program and finally the need to
cover her eyes on their way to the dacha in order to keep up the distorted
image they created. Secondly, the fragility of censorship is represented by the
constant surveillance needed to not confront Christiane with reality. Both the
mother’s censorship and the children’s created lies are not able to win against
reality as they are eventually disclosed. However, how little control the
censoring person can have is particularly underlined in two situations. Despite
the children’s effort and constant surveillance to prevent a confrontation with
reality, Christiane manages to escape from her room when Alex falls asleep
(here, falling asleep may represent the fatigue that results from maintaining
the censorship). Unintentionally in this situation, Alex loses control that
more or less through coincidence result in confrontation with reality. How much
this reality clashes with Christiane’s beliefs can be seen in her incapability
to capture what happens in her surroundings. This is shown by her irritated and
astonished conversation with a Western German and by her careful and
disoriented steps on the streets. The picture presented with her surrounded by
rushing cars strengthens the impression of her being in the middle of a
changing, hectic new world that is foreign to her. This perceived utopia
climaxes when a plane passes by and transports a statue of Lenin. The use of
the Lenin statue to shape the contrast between reality and utopia is
particularly strong: dismantling it is not only contradictory to the purpose of
a statue (e.g. remembering one’s achievements). Removing an iron statue that is
anchored in ground and stable also requires force, thus letting it seem as
brutal act. Another example of the censorship’s fragility can be found when
nurse and girlfriend Lara secretly tells Christiane about the German
reunification while Alex is absent.
Additionally,
a paradox is revealed when Alex involves the children and tenants for
Christiane’s birthday celebration. While he wants them to sing communist songs
in order to perpetuate the anti-capitalist ideology, they only do so in
exchange for 20 euros. Similarly, before asking the tenants for their
assistance, he offers a glass of schnapps to each of them to gain their
support. Thus, maintaining his censorship involves an increasing amount of
people whose support might be based on self-interest (e.g. receiving 20 euros),
thus deeply conflicting with the idea that their involvement is supposed to be
presented.
Finally,
the types of censorship both at state and personal level in the film represent
an ideal, an imagined and created world that has never existed. When Alex
reflects on his creation of the republic and says that “The GDR that I created
becomes ever more the country that I wished for” and “the country that my
mother left was a country she believed in”, one may interpret that the mutually
created images may serve as an escape. Censoring real happenings and living for
a communist ideology instead may have given the possibility to Christiane to
survive the system that has hurt her so much. Pretending the survival (and
superiority) of communism for Alex may serve, in the first place, to protect
his mother’s health state. However, remembering the past and actively
recreating it for her could also be a means of nostalgia to overplay and ignore
the mother’s illness (e.g.celebrating the birthday “like we always did”).
In
conclusion, “Goodbye Lenin” gives a multi-faceted representation of censorship
at different layers. Its close examination and emphasis of censorship on a
personal level makes it very valuable by shedding light on a perspective on
censorship that is usually not covered by conventional discourse about
censorship. While the latter is often related to violent repression, the film
“Goodbye Lenin” portrays it in a light aiming at the protection of the
censored.
References
Good Bye Lenin! Dir. Wolfgang Becker. Perf.
Daniel Brühl. X-Filme Creative Pool, 2003. DVD.
Leandra
Kristin Morich
s1450670
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review, particularly the exploration of details often overlooked by the viewer. I wish however to delve into your analysis and attempt to apply the film to a relatable modern example. Firstly, as you detail, Alex acts as a censor on both state and in a personal capacity, this personal capacity is paradoxical; he is protecting his mother by lying to his mother.
ReplyDeleteA contemporary example, which debates memory and censorship, is the coverage of the Syrian conflict. Images of decapitated bodies plastered across media, has created a discussion amongst Syrians if this is justifiable for the families who have lost their loved ones. Should they indeed see their loved one’s body destroyed or should their last memory, be a loving memory? This calls upon the public/private debate, the advantage of publicising the image is increasing public awareness. However on a private level why should families lose their agency to have private memories and grief. The overlying theme of my example and your analysis of Goodbye Lenin! lies within the debate about the influence of censorship upon memory, and whether it can be at all justified. When watching Goodbye Lenin! one empathises with Alex’s decision, but to what extent? At what point does Alex’s imposed “regime of truth” become to far? As you rightly note his girlfriend chooses to expose the lies to Christiane, and she didn’t have another heart attack, thus, could Alex not just have been honest from the beginning with her? These critical questions are at the core of the film, as they transcend the fall of the Berlin wall, or one specific event in history and present the sensitivity and continuing relevance of censorship in today’s world. Becker encourages the viewer to re-evaluate Alex’s censorship even though it is justified upon protecting his mother’s health.
Another element, which intrigued me in your review, is the consideration of self-interest in the new capitalist society. Interestingly references to the communist regime in the film had the appearance of a more egalitarian society. But again Becker wishes us to be critical of this nostalgic lens-reflecting communism, and fascinatingly his ironic approach to the presentation of the communist past and the refusal to completely accept the capitalist present seems to highlight the restrictions of both. Becker does not politicise either society, instead he humanises it, juxtaposing human lives under each system.