Warning: possible spoilers below. This is not intended as a movie review, but rather a discussion assuming the reader’s already seen the movies.
I watched The Wind That Shakes the Barley this weekend, and The Lives of Others last weekend. One subject that struck me was the way each movie portrays heroism, and I thought I’d talk about that a little.
In the Lives of Others, Stasi agent Gerd Wiesler demonstrates heroism in a subdued way. Over the course of the movie, Wiesler grows from a die-hard communist believer to a sympathesizer helping to protect the playwright Georg Dreyman.
At the start, Wiesler’s help is relatively passive- intentionally failing to report suspicious activity by Dreyman. It becomes increasingly active, as Wiesler fabricates reports of patriotic activity of Wiesler’s while in fact Wiesler is collaborating on an article to be published in West Germany. It culminates in Wiesler absconding with the typewriter Dreyman used to type the article moments before the Stasi arrive to retrieve it.
In The Wind that Shakes the Barley, the character Damien reluctantly joins the IRA fighting against British occupation in 1920s Ireland. As the movie opens, Damien is preparing to travel to London to continue his medical studies, but his witness to a couple tragic incidents lead him to stay and join with his brother the IRA in pursuit of an Irish Free State.
Both Wiesler and Damien fit the model of the reluctant hero. They both are flawed heroes as well. Wiesler, a member of the Stasi, maintains his underlying belief in East Germany’s socialist system, and also is depicted as a lonely idealogue- at one point soliciting a prostitute (in contrast to Dreyman’s undying love of his girlfriend). Further, he is relatively humorless. Damien’s flaw is in his radical idealism. Having at once decided to join the resistance, Damien allows his radical philosophies get the better of him, leading to tragic conclusions.
In Lives, Wiesler’s idealism is eroded whereas in Wind, Damien’s idealism flourishes and fuels his actions, eventually bringing about his own downfall. Wiesler’s heroism is of limited effect (saving the livlihood of Dreyman), whereas Damien is fighting for the future of his nation.
Whereas it’s easy for us to sympathize with Damien’s plight (even if you think he let himself get carried away). I felt a great admiration, however, for Wiesler’s situation. His was no great cause célèbre, yet he nevertheless put his life on the line for it.
In many ways, I thought the heroism of Lives was more real, or pertinent, than that from Wind. Great heroic stories, even when based on historical events, typically end in glory for the hero, either in life or in martyrdom. Wiesler’s glory, however, is much more subdued. His only external reward for his sacrifices is the knowledge that, in the end, Dreyman acknowledged them.
Wiesler’s graceful yet unassuming heroism is, I think, best depicted in the scene I found most moving in Lives. Wiesler has been working for over 4 years in Department M, steam-opening letters for the Stasi, when the news breaks that the Berlin Wall has come down. Slowly and quietly, Wiesler rises from his desk and walks out. No great fanfare, just quiet poignancy.
The chance to be a great hero or martyr in the face of overwhelming odds is not often provided to many. More often, however, the opportunity is presented to do a relatively small good deed in an apathetic world. In those cases, the risk may be almost as great if not worse- languishing in obscurity, and the potential reward not much better. It leads me to wonder which is the greater heroism- the great cause, leading down the path to certain glory (even if in death); or the quiet everyday sort of heroism in which the only reward is often your own knowledge of deeds done?
