Review of Waiting for the Barbarians, J.M. Coetzee

             Culture can be considered as one of the most efficient forms of protest; it draws a chord in human brains of humanity and relate ability. Literature is an example of how a writer can draw a reader into comprehending experiences beyond their own reality. The highly acclaimed South African writer John Coetzee is a case in point, his third novel Waiting for the Barbarians, an allegorical novel, acting as a protest to the wider status quo, both within the literary world and the political world.

            The central protagonist in the novel, the magistrate, is a representative of the state in an isolated frontier settlement between civilisation and waste lands, with the position of protecting the settlement from a larger threat, the “barbarians”.  The novel begins with the presence of Colonel Joll and his torture of perceived barbarians; this act ignites empathy in the magistrate.  The Magistrate following this empathy, houses a barbarian girl, who was subject to torture of Joll. The Magistrate’s shift in conscience throughout the novel entwined with his fraught relationship with the girl, ensure his gradual dissension against the authority of the empire. The novel climaxes with the realisation of the impossibility of expressing his rational dissent against the empire and the Magistrate is reduced to a madman.

            Coetzee masterly depicts (Foucauldian) “regime of truth”, how the dominant regulate rationality, acting as an informal censor. The reduction of the Magistrate as a madman, gives the state prerequisite to censor him, it stunts the possibility of dialogue. The Magistrate is isolated, like the location, he is ignored, overlooked. The Empire’s predefining extents beyond the Magistrate’s mental state, the “barbarians” are viewed as unpredictable uncivilised beings and thus irrational, this acts as a justification for excessive institutional violence. This “othering” is internalised by state actors as well as civilians, and Coetzee reveals it to be a necessary precursor for the states existence, the Empire defends civilians against the “other”. The soldiers at the end of the novel are rampant in the settlement and yet the people require their presence against the “barbarians”.

            The theme of “waiting” in the novel creates suspense and conjures the attention of the reader. Not because one necessarily believes the barbarians will indeed “attack” but because of the growing paranoia, aggravation and eventual disintegration of society within the settlement. The settlement throughout the novel dissolves both physically with settlers fleeing to the city and psychologically, this is in conjunction to the effective loss of the enemy, the fact the barbarians never arrived. This “waiting” is not unknown to us in 2015, with growing Islam-phobia in Europe, politicians rhetoric references the looming threat of fundamentalist Islam in European society abusing “our” liberal democratic pillars. The result of this “waiting” is paranoia. The paranoia instils a toxicity leading to: labelling; stereotyping; and thus ultimately a failed society.

            On the note of protest, the novel received a dubious reception in South Africa in 1980 it was not, however, censored. Coetzee’s ambiguity of place and cold winters convinced the censor “it was nowhere near South Africa”, and therefore there were “no apparent parallels” to the regime in South Africa (Poyner 46). It was however “undesirable” for other reasons, such as descriptions of implicit sex and of violence. The ambiguities in the text, go beyond an attempt to avoid the censor, they are intentional; the plot represents a story beyond the boarders of one state or one historical event.

            The novel sought to challenge the status quo through form as well as content: Coetzee’s choice to reject prevailing European (and South African) literary trends, by adopting an absurdist style, inspired by Samuel Beckett. An example of the parallels is in the relationship between protagonists: the Magistrate’s relationship with the barbarian girl is comparable to the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon (Vladmir’s inferior) in Waiting for Godot. The estranged relationship between the Magistrate with the barbarian girl including his failure to remember her face when she arrived; his failure to communicate with her; his failure to have sexual relations with her, all reveal the magistrates internal loss of his self. The peculiarity of their relationship one of inevitable superiority and inferiority, is reflective to be wider than their existence, similarly the absence of location, Coetzee describes an unnamed place and dynamic and yet as the reader it is entirely relatable. Beckett’s Vladimir reprimands Estragon for trying to leave “There’s no way out there”, both pieces have this imprisonment dynamic. Despite the physical return of the barbarian girl to her people, as the reader you recognise the depths of the torture will continue to plague her life, she like the Magistrate will never be free even outside of the Empire society.

            One could easily criticise Coetzee’s refusal to divulge into detailed descriptions of the barbarians, but Coetzee does so in defiance.  The silence acts to imitate the reality of those subject to inferior treatment in the world. The barbarian girl is silent, and appears to the have no voice, but it is more complex than that. As Nadine Gordimer contended with, also writing in Apartheid South Africa, if you are in the privileged position to be able to speak, should you and what would you say on behalf of the underprivileged? The silence represents Coetzee’s refusal to assume their (the barbarians) subjectivity. Her silence is captivating, because as the reader you are hungry for a background about the girl, and yet like the magistrate you are unable to obtain it. As the reader you are however more empathetic of the girl than the magistrate, the absence of her identity, as the leading barbarian in the novel, highlights Coetzee’s protest of othering. 

            Coetzee’s subtle depiction of a torturous society plagues the Magistrate as well as the reader. And the end does not leave the reader in peace. Cavafy’s poem (written in 1904) with the same name as the novel haunts Coetzee’s underlining question:

“And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.” (Cavafy)

Works Cited:

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting For Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1954. Print.

Cavafy, C.P. Collected Poems. Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Edited by George Savidis. Revised Edition. Princeton University Press, 1992.

Coetzee, J. M. Waiting For The Barbarians. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1982. Print.

Foucault, Michel, and Colin Gordon. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. Print.

Gordimer, Nadine. “Living in the Interregnum.” The Essential Gesture: Writing, Politics, and Places. London: Jonathan Cape, 1988, 272-284.

Poyner, Jane. J.M. Coetzee And The Idea Of The Public Intellectual. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2006. Print.

GoodBye Lenin!

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.

Huyssen, Andreas. "Present Pasts: Media, Politics, Amnesia." Project Muse 12.1 (2000): 28-36. Web.

film review Good bye Lenin!

Thikuna Canna binti Mohd Suffian

1398768

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

Dr. Ksenia Robbe

word count: 925

A simulated reality- film review of Good bye Lenin!

East Berlin, 1989. On the 40^th anniversary of the GDR, only days before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Alexander (Daniel Bruhl), a young German boy participates in a riot to promote the idea of walking in free borders. His mother, Christiane (Katrin Saß), is very loyal to the communist regime of the GDR. When she coincidently sees him participating in the riot against the regime, she instantly gets a heart attack and lapses in a coma. For eight months she stays in coma, and she sleeps though all the changes that East Berlin went through. She sleeps through the fall of the Berlin Wall, the first free elections, the reunification of Germany and the increasing westernization. Essentially mom overslept the triumph of capitalism.  When she finally wakes up, the doctors tell Alex and his sister Ariane (Maria Simon) that the slightest shock could cause another heart attack. Mom, being a very idealistic promotor of her socialist fatherland, would not survive in this new capitalistic Berlin. Alex and Ariane then decide to pretend nothing has changed and they create this fictional, simulated reality in which mom’s beloved socialist regime is still in charge.
                Good Bye Lenin! is  an unusual story about an all changing Berlin. This political tragicomedy is unique in its genre, as it is told from a German perspective. Social criticism on the German reunification and capitalism is given from different sides, and this is exactly what makes this movie unique. The movie is built around the representation of censorship in a constructed world. Censorship has a significant role in this movie. Not only because it is one of the main topics throughout the story, but also because we can identify different types of censorship that provide us with new perspectives on censorship itself. Shortly, it motivates us to critically think about censorship.
                In one scene, Alex says; ‘’The country my mother left was a country she had believed in, and which we kept alive until her last second. A country that in fact never existed like this. A country that in my memory will always be connected to my mother.’’ This clearly illustrates that the GDR Alex created for his mother was in fact the one he would have liked to have. In this, he not only shows resistance to this new system of capitalism, Alex also creates his own imaged regime. This imaged regime is essentially based on censoring as well.
                Another form of self-censorship can be found in Christiane’s extremely positive image of socialism. She was a fanatic promotor of the socialist GDR, or as Alex states. ‘’…my mother got married to her socialist fatherland’’. Christiane seemed to only see the good  sides of communism, and in that she censored all the negative aspects of the GDR. It is striking to realise that the socialist regime of the GDR was built upon this type of self-censorship. Christiane therefore becomes an image of an ideal socialistic regime, that in fact is in denial about its own flaws and shortcomings.
                This brings us to the different discourses that the main characters are related to. Clearly, Christiane as a very loyal and idealistic promotor of the GDR’s socialist regime would never approve of capitalism. Her daughter Ariane is somewhat different. She embraces the new system of capitalism, that brings her modernity and opportunities in life. She gives up her studies to sell hamburgers at Burger King. Alex is somewhat in between. He embraces his new life, as he states ‘’… the future was in our hands, uncertain and promising.’’ According to him, Berlin after the fall of the wall, ‘’ was the most beautiful place on earth again- in summer it felt like the centre of the world.’’ This illustrates Alex’ sympathy towards the new system of capitalism. However, he also sometimes felt nostalgic of the old Berlin he used to know. ‘’20 Years of GDR didn’t harm our health, right?’’ Alex wonders in one particular scene in which he seems to be the only one who is critical towards the new system. He doesn’t seem to realise that by keeping his mother in a simulated reality of the old GDR, he keeps himself there as well. This censorship of remembering prevents him to fully embrace the new system of capitalism, and thus his new life.
                Good bye Lenin! is as entertaining as it is reflective. It is often funny, as Alex’ determination of keeping the GDR alive leads to unexpected situations. The deep love he feels for his mother makes him determined to overcome all obstacles in keeping her healthy and happy, even if that means creating a world that is long gone. The white lies eventually come out, as it becomes increasingly harder for everyone involved to maintain all the deception. Lara (Chulpan Khamatova), Alex’ girlfriend, is in the end the one who values the truth higher than the lies. Although her motives for telling the truth were not entirely clear in the movie, she was less consumed by the imaginary world Alex created and she had a certain distance to Christiane which gave room for clear thinking. In the end it becomes clear that everyone involved feels differently about all the lies and censoring.
                In conclusion, (self)censorship is depicted in this movie as something that doesn’t necessarily have to be negative, as it can be a way of protecting your family. But, this movie teaches us that although censorship and lies can sometimes be used for a good cause, truth will eventually prevail and will be what people value highest. 

Book review

Martine Baijanova

S1337076

Tutor: Ksenia Robbe

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

Word count: 1001

30-03-2015

Waiting for the Barbarians -  J.M Coetzee

Penguin, originally published in 1980, 156 pp

Waiting for the Barbarians is a novel by the South African John Maxwell Coetzee, which won the James Tait Black Memorial Prize and the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize. Coetzee himself was the second South African who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2003. His other appraised works include Life and Times of Michael K. and Disgrace which both won the Booker prize. Nevertheless, with Waiting for the Barbarians Coetzee gained international notice. The book showcases his distinctive style of writing, which is often naturalistic, storytelling fiction (Meek 2009). Naturalistic meaning that people are shaped by their environment and that their future is determined. In Coetzee writings, there is often a maverick who has to stand up against a group. This can be clearly seen in Waiting for the Barbarians.

The novel is narrated by an unnamed magistrate in a colonial town, which is the territorial frontier of the Empire. This town is in peace and quiet until colonel Joll from The Empire arrives and stirs things up. He believes that The Empire is threatened by the Barbarians and that the Barbarians are planning an attack against them soon. This clearly depicts a state of paranoia since they see threats, which is the invasion of the barbarians, which aren’t there. Colonel Joll and his Third Bureau soldiers frequently capture barbarians during this period and torture them until they “confess” that they are preparing an attack. I put confess in between brackets since it is obvious that anyone, also in the real world, would confess to crimes they haven’t committed under tremendous torture. One can see censorship in this since the Third Bureau, or more particularly Colonel Joll, has the only say in the situation. The only role by the barbarians is to follow the role appointed by Joll. Furthermore, the soldiers are not allowed to tell the full story of the interrogations to the magistrate, again demonstrating  censorship.

The magistrate questions these raids by having internal monologues but does not explicitly discuss them with Colonel Joll or other soldiers of the Third Bureau. With this, it is clear that the magistrate is a maverick and stands alone. Even though we don’t know how other citizens or authoritarians of the town felt about the actions of the Third Bureau, it’s evident that the magistrate more and more doesn’t agree with the Third Bureau by the many internal monologues he has. Furthermore, no other people in the book are mentioned that stand up against the Third Bureau. However, this can also be out of fear, since the magistrate doesn’t really dare to take action himself. Meanwhile, he nurses a barbarian woman who was partially blinded by the interrogators and he has an intimate relationship with her. However, he eventually decides to bring her back to her people. Colonel Joll receives message about this and decides to lock the magistrate up because he believes that he was working with the barbarians. It seems clear that the magistrate could have known he would get in trouble for this, and in my opinion this clearly depicts his naivety. When reading the book, you can see it coming that Colonel Joll wouldn’t turn a blind eye on this incident, even though the magistrate’s intentions were good. Once a man treated with a lot of respect now has to fight and beg for basic needs.

Later, colonel Joll returns with more barbarians and makes a big spectacle of this. The crowd is encouraged to participate in the beatings. Appalled by this, the magistrate tries to stop this spectacle. This is the first time in the book that the magistrate knowingly takes action against the submission of the barbarians. However, the colonel doesn’t accept this and tortures him by hanging him up. Eventually the magistrate is released because the Third Bureau believes that he has nowhere to go and doesn’t possess a threat. Even though the villagers knew about the magistrate’s opinions, and didn’t necessarily share them, they were still friendly towards him when he was released. This could show that deep down they knew he was doing the right thing. The soldiers too, eventually, flee the town. By the end of the book, the barbarians still haven’t arrived, indicating that they probably will never come either.

Since the magistrate and place is unnamed it could be anyone, anywhere. Even though Waiting for the Barbarians is fiction, it is not only relevant in the period it was written, but also depicts current situations. When looking at Coetzee’s background and the period in which it was written, one can relate it to the situation in South Africa at that time, when racial discrimination was part of everyday life during apartheid. One can find censorship in this as the black people where subordinate to white people, and thus the former had the only say. Furthermore, a sphere of paranoia was created among the white people. However, as mentioned before, Waiting for the Barbarians is also relevant for nowadays. As Meek said in his article, “Substitute "terrorists" for "barbarians" and you have a history of Britain and America since 2001” (2009).

To conclude, the notion of censorship is not highly evident in Waiting for the Barbarians in my opinion. However, when looking for it, one can see hints of censorship in it. When one would read the book for pleasure, censorship would not necessarily cross their mind as being a theme of the book. However, I do not believe Coetzee intended it to be so obvious, especially looking at the period in which it was written. On a personal level, I could easily identify with the magistrate since it was written in the first person. At points I got frustrated because I feel that the treatment of the magistrate towards the end, and especially the barbarians throughout the book was outrageous. However, it gives an interesting image of society, and forces one to think outside one’s own reality. At the same time, Coetzee manages to draw his reader in, and create an emotional response.

Reference:

Meek, James. "The Many Faces of JM Coetzee." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 5 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.

Film review: Good Bye, Lenin!

Jade Copier

S1384503

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

Dr. Ksenia Robbe

Word count: 970

Big white lies

            The 2003 movie Good Bye, Lenin! by Wolfgang Becker can be seen as the portrayal of two big white lies that have serious impacts on the history and future of the main characters in the movie. The first white lie starts in the late 1970s when the father of the main character, Alex, flees from the German Democratic Republic to the Federal Republic of Germany. Alex’ mother (Christiane) decides not to tell her children the truth and tells her children that their father has left for West Germany with his new ‘capitalist’ girlfriend. The second white lie starts when Alex’ mother, who is a devoted Party member, has a heart attack after seeing Alex joining a protest march for free press and against the party. The heart attack caused for her to remain in a coma for eight months. Due to her comatose state, she missed significant changes in East Germany, such as the Fall of the Berlin Wall. When she wakes up, she is still very vulnerable and her children realise that telling her the news of the Fall and the unification of Germany, might be too much for her. Therefore, her children decide not to tell her about the events that happened during her eight month coma. However, it becomes increasingly harder to continue the lies.  

Self-censorship plays a crucial role in the lives of the Kerner family. Normally, we talk about censorship as something negative, but the movie shows that censorship can have a positive impact. The lie that Christiane tells her children about the departure of her husband, is a way for her to cope with his leave. She is afraid to leave the country with her children and to protect them, she comes up with her lie. Whether fleeing East Germany with two children would have been successful or not, remains the question, but thanks to her lie, they did not leave East Germany and lived (relatively) peaceful lives.
The second lie can be described as the creation of an imaginary world with its own regime and media. This lie is a way for Alex and his sister to protect their mother. Even when it becomes increasingly harder to maintain this lie, he continues to do so, in order to assure his mother’s health. His sister and girlfriend are becoming critical of this lie, because the lying is getting out of control. They want Alex to tell her the truth, but he refuses, fearing that she cannot handle such news.
So self-censorship in this movie is not per definition something negative, it is a way of protecting your family.

This film does not only have features of self-censorship, but also features of the censorship of remembering. For the main characters, it becomes increasingly harder to maintain their lies. This film does an excellent job in showing us the impact of the reunification of not just the East and West. But the unification of democracy and capitalism with communism and socialism. In history books, you will often only read about the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of the GDR and the FRG, without mentioning the impact it had on peoples’ daily lives. However, Good Bye, Lenin! shows us the significant impact that the reunification has had on people’s lives, by showing us the difficulty of maintaining the pre-1989 situation. What makes it even harder to recreate the situation before the Fall of the wall, is that the pre-1989 situation was very much loaded with censorship. Therefore, Alex is not only reproducing the situation from before the reunification, but he is also reproducing the censorship of that time. No matter what happens, Alex finds a way to make that happening fit into the politics (and censorship) of the time before the reunification. So, when Christiane saw a Coca Cola advertorial, he told her that Coca Cola was actually invented in Germany and was not a capitalist, but a socialist drink. Another moment where Alex is reproducing censorship of the pre-1989 period, is when Christiane finds out about Westerners living in the GDR. He quickly comes up with the lie that some Westerners were unsatisfied with the capitalist lifestyle, and therefore sought refuge in the East.
So, Alex works so hard on maintaining the image and situation of the old regime, that in the end, he makes up an imaginary regime that is living up to his mother’s standards of what the state should be like.

In the end, however, it becomes clear, that even white lies eventually come out. Christiane tells her children the real story about her husband, whom she wants to see before she dies. Lara (Alex’ girlfriend), who is fed up with the lies, tells Christiane the truth on her deathbed.

After analysing the movie, I have come to the conclusion, that even though censorship and lies are sometimes told for a good cause, in the end, the truth will prevail. When Christiane realises that she is dying, she knows that she has to come clean and tell the truth. In the end, she values the truth higher than maintaining her lie.
Lara, who cannot continue to live in the situation where they have to maintain a façade in order to protect Christiane, decides to tell Christiane the truth. Her motives are not entirely clear, but one could argue that she needs to tell Christiane the truth in order to save her relationship with Alex, who is completely consumed by his imaginary regime. Therefore, Lara values the truth higher than a lie. So, to conclude, it becomes clear that people choose to lie or censor certain events, as long as that is the most efficient way of dealing with issues, however, when it becomes more valuable to speak the truth, most people will choose to tell the truth.

Works cited

Good Bye Lenin! Dr. Wolfgang Becker. Perf. Daniel Brühl, Katrin Saß, Maria Simon, and Chulpan Khamatova. X Verleih AG, 2003. Film.

Feedback on Michaela Karasová’s essay: ‘’Lie As a Lifesaver’’

Warda Zaabat

Elective: Censorship

Wordcount: 385

Ksenia Robbe

BA, International Studies

Feedback on Michaela Karasová’s essay: ‘’Lie As a Lifesaver’’

     At first sight it is visible that the essay is structured correctly. As in the introduction the writer, Michaela Karasová, introduced the subject of the film by providing a short analysis, questioning why people lie and how, despite the negative connotations, it can be justified as an act of goodwill. Furthermore, Michaela argues that elements of ‘mutual suppression’ are present throughout the whole movie. Firstly, Alexander’s efforts to recreate history to prevent his mother from any shocks that could lead to a fatal heart attack, and secondly, Christiane’s lie about the departure of her husband.

     The writer provides a clear historical explanation for the situation presented in the movie. Moreover, while illustrating events in the film, Michaela also explains how this particularly contributed to the construction of their ‘imaginary world’. For instance, when discussing Christiane’s recovery of her mental breakdown she starts believing in her own lies. Telling not only herself but also her children that their father has left them in order to be with another woman.

     While Michaela argues that the start of the development of the ‘imaginary world’ for Christiane culminated when she wanted to watch television, I would disagree. The construction of the false truth started immediately in the hospital room when Christiane gained consciousness, as Alexander and Ariane deliberately withheld the truth and assigned their mother’s collapse to other non-political factors. Additionally, they refurnished their house back to the pre-unification state in order to deceive Christiane more easily in believing their constructed reality. Hence the basis of the ‘imaginary world’ was laid and the climaxing point of the ‘imaginary world’ by Alex started when Christiane gained her strength to walk and look outside the window and wander outside. As this was the cause that led Alexander to broadcast news footages with false explanations for the events Christiane witnessed. 

     Finally, the writer concludes that indeed censorship was present in the movie in a positive way. But who can determine whether and when censor is acceptable? Why do we accept certain deceptions? Michaela could have answered this more concretely. Furthermore, Alexander’s mother did not pass away without knowing the truth as Lara confessed the truth hours before Christiane’s death. The serene decease of Christiane was the result of the truth not the lie. Because through the confession of Lara, Christiane learned Alexander’s love for his mother was unconditional.

Repressive and protective means of censorship in “Goodbye Lenin” – A Film Review

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