

The saying ‘history repeats its self’ rings true as, Antonio Tabucchi’s Pereira Declares and The Lives of Others film directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck have analogous storylines focused on separate points in history. The parallels between the two concentrate on the similar authoritarian governments of 1938 Lisbon, Portugal which is ruled by the dictator Salazar, who sides with the fascism of Franco in Spain and the Stassi of East Germany. Each governmental force flourished through their use of scare tactics, which included full surveillance of their citizens. East Germany was a country filled with almost 17 million people, and yet the streets are practically deserted in the film.  The sight of a single car far feels out of place. Portugal had a similar feel as Tabucchi describes the setting in almost a deathlike state.  “The weather is an allegory for state oppression: hot, airless and suffocating” (Sanai). Oppression could be felt everywhere. All they had to do was Apply enough pressure, and threaten lives and they had enough power to keep opposition down. This was the way most supposedly sovereign satellites of the USSR were conducted. With this in mind, the two comparable main characters are writers, who due to their circumstances must censor their work to follow the government. During these time periods, artists and other “free thinkers” found themselves toys of the government, who could be played with any point. Through analysis of each work, a similar message is clear in both; character development and growth are crucial for someone to make the right decision.  

 Comparatively Pereira Declares and The Lives of Others deal with the grey area of picking sides; each main protagonist was faced with the momentous decision of either choosing black or white. Their decisions came after exposure to the censored social and political ideas that fascism and communism hid from their societies. Both Pereira of Pereira Declares, and Dreyman of the Lives of Others, were involved in the literary aspects of society. They were forced due to the nature of the time period to attach themselves to one side, given that it was no longer an option to leave politics out of their writing. For years, the GDR had been very good to the playwright Dreyman, provided that he write by the rules. He’s had no problems with accommodating their requests, since he was free to somewhat write what he wanted. This all changed when he was influenced by his former colleague suicide. Dreyman write’s an article about the covered up suicide rates the GDR. He wants to crack the system that stifled his associates’ need to create, and with little care for his own life, begins the process of his own downfall.  

Similar to Dreyman, Pereira is the unlikely hero. He is the elderly cultural editor of a minor Lisbon paper. Who starts out Initially indifferent to politics. His main focus is to lead a quiet life. This changes when he reads and obituary of the death by a young graduate and on impulse contacts the author, Rossi. Ultimately Rossi is caught up radical political ideas that Pereira wishes to not take part in. But it is Rossi’s death, that is the catalyst of his change of heart and character development. He writes Rossi’s obituary which is seen as a force of resistance. Each piece ultimately leads to both men choosing to join the opposition. Their writing each using an intense amount of courage and character growth, as each men in the beginning did not want to stand up to the political powers. 

There is something ironic that comes with any authoritarian regime, a lack of military presence. There are limited guards around the Stasi headquarters and soldiers are rarely seen patrolling alongside the police. This is lack of man power seems strange as each society had a  large population to oppress. During these time periods one would think they’d be everywhere. But ironically, they are nowhere to be found. In the end: “We realize, that when neighbors are turned into informants, the military presence isn’t needed: that’s the ultimate power of paranoia” (Gibron).  People either choose to help the government or stand against them.  Without the character development and the human condition the world would be full of people constantly wronging each other. Therefore, surveillance is only good when the watcher is not influenced by the story.  Authoritarian governments try to make people make the ‘right choice’ but it is people like Gerald Wiesler that undermine the system and make it implode. 

Before the eventual reunification of East and West in 1990, evidence shows that almost 90,000 men and women were involved in official surveillance, with another 175,000 acting as informants. As a result of this, the fictional story of The Lives of Others shows what happens when seemingly cold hearted antagonist is faced with doing what is right according to the government, or doing what he senses is right.  The film revealed what it meant to be human for Stasi Captain Gerd Wiesler. He is assigned by his superior, to spy on popular playwright Georg Dreyman. The story shows the power of politics as it: “evokes a vindictive society that exists by turning citizens against each other in the interests of national unity and collective security” (French). In response, what he uncovers is Dreyman is guilty of challenging the German Democratic Republic. But, the love and emotion he feels from his story is unexpected impact that this lifelong conformist is beginning to understand. Through further investigation of the harsh and unjustifiable rules of the GDR, Wiesler realizes he is on the wrong side. And now he is faced with a dilemma. Will he report it, or will he step in and not be the one watching but rather the one impacting the lives of other? He makes the challenging but right decision and ends up saving Dreyman because his grown human emotion.  

The Lives of Others exposes its other significant theme: the fragility of humans.  The Soviet system was a model of ‘efficiency and equality’, something believed by the Stassi members. But only robots could do the job of keeping the heart out of their work.  This is part of the grey area that human emotion deals with.  Pereira deals with similar themes. The author could no longer keep his work apolitical because of character. Pereira's lonely existence, unattractive physique inspire empathy and they pull at the heart. The emotional appeal that he is an ordinary man who makes a difference, seeks to inspire many. Thus proving the point that humans will do what they feel is right for their situation above all. Whether that is following the movement to save themselves, or growing to understand their lives impact others. Pereira and Dreyman both understood this. Their revelations took time, but due to character growth they developed a firm understanding of what was right and who was wrong. 
