The Revolution's Here

The endings of “The Lives of Others” and “Persepolis” are quite poignant representations of change in their respective countries, Germany and Iran. Each country goes through a change that greatly shakes the characters of these respective films. The endings of the films change everything for the lead characters. However, the endings of the two films have two completely different outcomes for Weisler and Marjane. In “The Lives of Others,” Weisler’s life in shaken and shrunken, and in “Persepolis,” Marjane takes the great leap towards personal freedom.
“The Lives of Others’” ending demonstrates the fall of East Germany’s reign. As Weisler is discovered as the ally who now works as a mail deliverer, the film shows the change that has occurred in his country. Once the mightiest Stasi officer, strong and proud, Weisler has become a small and insignificant man, just as the country he once served was. Inversely, the speck of a man that he observed now has power, as a famous author. He can even give Weisler hope and confidence in his choices and the changes that have occurred by dedicating his novel to him. In this instance, Weisler, who used to have the power, is now subservient to the man he once nearly stalked. This powerful ending is the final proof that East Germany has fallen and is no more.
In “Persepolis,” Marjane also brings change. Her change is a reaction to the revolution in Iran, and her need to leave such a place. She cannot exist in that country, and brings about a personal revolution by leaving her homeland for freedom. Nothing else matters at this point for her. Her change is the antithesis of Weisler’s. The revolution in Iran and the change it invokes helps Marjane and makes her stronger, whereas what happened to Weisler effects him in a negative way. While Marjane is climbing up the freedom ladder, Weisler is crashing.
Another important metaphor that emphasizes this point is the death of Marjane’s grandmother. Grandma is the epitome of strength and rebellion in the shaken Iran. Her death is the perfect metaphor for the change that happens in her country, and as Marjane says, the price of freedom. While Marjane was in Iran, Grandma was able to live successfully in Iran, but the moment Marjane leaves, it is the final declaration that Iran has permanently changed, and Grandma cannot exist.
The ending of “The Lives of Others” demonstrates the great fall of a man who was in power as a result of a revolution. Contrarily, the ending of “Persepolis” demonstrates the strength one woman finds from the revolution. While each have different results for our leading characters, the statement is ultimately the same. That statement: when the revolution comes, change will be brought from all directions. It may not always be for the benefit of all (as seen in both Marjane and Weisler), but the change it brings is not only strong but moving, as in the case of Marjane, who manages to leave the wrecked land of Iran. In both films, the revolution has come, and is unstoppable. That is the unchanging truth in the endings of these two films.

Indifference Meets the Banlieue, Feels "Hate"

There is a contradictory feeling in Matheiu Kassowitz’ film "La Haine." The film leaves the audience with the perspective of the French urban neighborhoods as being increasingly dangerous. I, as an audience member, firmly believed that life in these suburbs is worse than anything here, and that there is a socio-economic segregation between these French citizens and those who live in Paris. The film makes it seem that the Parisians live wonderful, free lives. However, when examining the film, this is hardly the case. Kassowitz says that the banlieues are actually happier places than seen in the movie, and in the film, the characters fair relatively well when they stay in the banlieue. In Paris, the characters are beaten in a horrific way as opposed to feeling as free as one would think from the vibe of the film. Given these two ideas, what is the real message Kassowitz is trying to send the audience? I myself am having a difficult time understanding this difference in opinion. I think, though, when all is said and done, that I believe that Kassowitz is trying to demonstrate the lack of hope for the people who live in the banlieues.
I don’t think that it matters for these people where they are from as far as race goes. They are all French citizens, and obviously there is little to no racial segregation in the banlieues. However, there is segregation between those who live in the banlieues and those who are more integrated into French society as we normally think of it. The people in these French immigrant suburbs are isolated from the rest of the country, and while they have their own piece of culture in their little world, that fact is hardly compensation for the way they are treated by outsiders. This concept is what I believe Kassowitz was trying to explain.
The basic plot of "La Haine" can be described as three boys reacting to police brutality. This brutality is not felt because they are immigrants, because they are boys, or even because they are poor, it is because they are outsiders. They live in a place rejected by the rest of the country, a place forgotten, destroyed. The police treat them with hostility because they have power over them, because no one pays any mind. After all, who cares about the banlieue? The answer: no one. They are ignored, and so they are not socialized into French culture. Vinz, Hubert, and Said cannot begin to understand what Paris is like, because they are kept away. They are pushed to such levels of rage because they can’t be part of France as a country, because France is kept at a distance.
This film is not about whether conditions are better in Paris or the banlieue. It is about the classic human struggle to be heard, to be seen, and to have a fighting chance. Vinz finds policeman’s gun and wants to use it because he cannot think of a greater way to be seen. This is Kassowitz’ point: desperate people do desperate things. The rage Vinz feels in "La Haine" does not come from poor conditions, but from the indifference that he is faced with.