Penrod 1

CHID 390
5/14/13
The Representation of Communism in Under a Cruel Star and The Lives of Others
In 1848, Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels published one of the most well-known
documents in history, the Communist Manifesto. The then inflammatory and now infamous
document outlined a new theory of economic and social structure in response to the rise of
capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. The theory proposed that public ownership be
replaced by private capital with the eventual end-goal of the emergence of a classless society.
But as history has shown us, reality did not develop in accordance with theory. Rather, under the
leadership of Vladimir Lenin and later Joseph Stalin, communism came to be more authoritarian
than egalitarian, more repressive than freeing, and more generally much different in practice than
in conception. Today, many public spaces, monuments, films, and other forms of representation
seek to show what life was like under communist rule and to address the lasting effects of the
regime on institutions, ideas, and perceptions. Notably, these representations are not unbiased;
they present communism through a particular lens that, in turn, influences knowledge production
about the subject in the viewer. That is, by presenting communism in a certain way, these
representations narrate a certain history or storyline and perpetuate that narrative as fact,
regardless of its objectivity or validity. In this paper I will analyze and compare the production of
knowledge about communism in two different modes of representation: Under a Cruel Star (a
memoir) and The Lives of Others (a film).

Under A Cruel Star

In Under a Cruel Star, Heda Kovaly details her experience during the Holocaust and later
under a communist regime with grace, a lack of self-pity, and a critical eye. Born in Prague and

Penrod 2

of Jewish descent, Heda spent World War II under Nazi control, first in the Lodz Ghetto and then
in concentration camps. After realizing that she would not survive much longer in the camps, she
managed to escape (by what she describes as a miracle) only to be turned away once safely
in Prague by friends who feared punishment by Nazis if they were discovered to be helping a
Jewish fugitive. But most of the book is not about Hedas life during Nazi occupation, a time, we
can all agree, was a low point in the history of mankind. Rather, the majority of Hedas memoir
details how communism was able to take hold in the Czech Republic (and more generally across
Central and Eastern Europe) and the highs and lows of living under the regime once it had
established a hold.
Unlike in many books that explicate the rise of communism in a negative, often
judgmental light, Heda sets communism within the context of the times and is sympathetic
toward the people caught up in uniquely trying circumstances. After the fall of the Nazis, along
with the happiness and relief of being free from fascist rule came a sense of guilt and resentment
of those who had taken part in the horror, even passively, towards those who had stood their
moral ground (e.g. the Jews themselves, the passive resisters, political prisoners, etc.); the
innocent became a living reproach and potential threat to the guilty (Kovaly, 52). Additionally,
there was a sense of despair over the depths that mankind had shown itself capable of sinking to;
people coped by blaming, not humans themselves, since it is impossible for man to give up on
mankind, but rather the sociopolitical system that had governed it when things turned south
(Kovaly, 53). Both of these factors provided the foundational atmosphere of distrust and
uncertainty that made communism seem that much more ideal.
It is easy to look back with hindsight for guidance and believe that we would all see
communism for the soon-to-be failure it was. But at a time of such uncertainty, with so many

Penrod 3

people wanting a return to their way of life as it had been before World War II and Nazi
occupation, the appeal of an ideology that promised equality for all, no discrimination, and more
generally a new and better life is hard to deny. Communism was, as Heda explains, at least in
theory, exactly what people were looking for. It provided simple and logical answers and
solutions to complex questions and problems, offered stability and a feeling of belonging, and
was generally perceived as the opposite of Nazism. Further, the communist ideology found its
backing in emotions and experiences rather than hard facts, making its supporters that much
more impassioned and its denial that much harder. Heda herself at first tried to defend
democracy, both to her husband Rudolph and to other friends who supported communism, but
one cannot sway those who see the world through emotionally-tinted glasses. Facts were not
enough to dissuade those who were zealous about the ideals of communism and were determined
to see them succeed regardless of indications otherwise.
For survivors of the Holocaust in particular, past experiences made them especially
susceptible to communist ideals. For one, a solidarity mentality developed among survivors in
which they began to associate their own well-being with the common good (Kovaly, 60), a key
tenet of communist ideology. Additionally and even more dangerously, survivors had learned
through their time in the camps and/or under more general racial persecution in their day to day
lives to stop regarding freedom as something natural and self-evident and to believe that
freedom is something that is earned and fought for, a privilege that is rewarded (Kovaly, 61)
leading to a skewed understanding that freedom must be given up for a time in order to build a
better society. This sense of necessary martyrdom, in turn, was reinforced by a sense of guilt for
having survived the Holocaust while others did not. Kovaly herself rejected this notion and

Penrod 4

argues that a political system which cannot function without martyrs is a bad, destructive
system (Kovaly, 62); she recognized the faults in this sentiment from the start.
Once communism did attain control over Czech (and greater Central and Eastern
European) society, it planted its roots hard and fast. Being a member of the party meant
constantly making sure ones thoughts and actions were in line with the partys and if they were
not, to blame this lack of cohesion on a faulty bourgeois background, antiquated reasoning,
intellectual decadence, or misguided education (Kovaly, 63). It came to be believed that it was
the old way of thinking (under a democratic government) and acting (freely and with ones
personal interests in mind) that allowed Nazism to gain power and that adhering to a new way of
life that rejected such modes of government and discourse was the only way to prevent Nazism
from taking hold again. There was also a firm belief among the Czech people that the
communism that would be practiced in the Czech Republic would be one along the lines of that
practiced in Yugoslavia under Josip Tito which had seen success. Overall, there was a lot of
misguided hope that communism would bring peace back to the Czech Republic and across
Central and Eastern Europe.
Peace was far from what occurred. Under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, the communist
regime began to control every aspect of its citizens day to day lives, creating an atmosphere of
paranoia and suspicion. Whereas the theory of communism had promised the erasure of class
divisions and discrimination, in reality, officials received special treatment and comrades were
discriminated against based on their backgrounds and perceived loyalty to the party. Fear was
widespread of the regime and other people in general as it came to be believed that no one could
be trusted and ones position of safety was not permanent. For Kovaly in particular, the
hypocrisy and inhumanity of the regime was felt in the treatment of her husband Rudolph, a state

Penrod 5

official, who was arrested based on falsified evidence (he had become too powerful and it made
the party uncomfortable) and when friends and doctors turned away in her time of need (once
again, just as had had happened when she fled from the concentration camp) out of fear for their
own well-being.
Despite her astute appraisal of the factors that led to communisms rise to and
maintenance of power, Kovaly insists that it was nothing special about her intellect or character
that allowed her to see through the web of lies. Rather, it was because she was a woman and
cared less about politics and more about day to day tasks and family, because she was more
connected to the real world than many others, that she was able to remain critical, if at times
apathetic, towards the regime. Rudolph, for example, based his appraisal of the success of
communism on statistics (that were, we know now, mostly falsified). Kovaly, in being detached
from the propaganda, saw more clearly that the reality of life did not match the statistics being
published. Additionally, Kovaly does not judge those who treated her poorly when Rudolph was
arrested and she became very ill. She acknowledged that times were dire and everyone had to
look out for themselves. Nonetheless, the lack of moral integrity communism brought out in a lot
of people is a key theme in Kovalys memoir.
While being well-written and fair, Kovalys memoir does still present a specific
interpretation of life during communist rule that, in turn, influences the perception of the reader.
Kovaly is understanding of the unique circumstances that allowed the regime to take hold but is
nonetheless critical of its effect on society, particularly because someone dear to her (her
husband Rudolph) had his life ruined by it. Unlike many other presentations of the time, Kovaly
rejects any notions of good and evil, black and white, or victim and perpetrator divides. Instead,
she is adamant that lines were blurry and that circumstances forced many to do things they would

Penrod 6

never otherwise have done. One could argue that Kovaly does not include enough about the good
times under the communist regime (in the way that The Lives of Others does). I would argue,
however, that this was because she did not experience much of them and was always somewhat
suspicious of the communist system. Overall, Kovaly presents a humanistic and sympathetic but
still discerning view of communism in her memoir.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others takes a similar but more critical approach to evaluating life under
communist rule; it is a portrayal of day to day life in East Berlin as well as a commentary on the
moral choices faced by characters in difficult circumstances and the ability of human character to
change. The film opens in East Berlin in 1984 (not coincidentally the same year as Orwells
infamous novel about a dystopian future) where we are introduced to Captain Gerd Wiesler of
the Secret Police as he lectures a class on proper interrogation techniques. A student dares to
raise his hand and point out that the techniques being used (sleep deprivation, threats, etc.) are
inhumane. Wiesler responds by marking an x next to the students name on his class list. It is
not stated but one can assume that the x is an indicator to fail the student, or worse, to report
him to the Stasi as being against the state. From this scene and others early on in the film we
gather that Wiesler is a staunch supporter of the Stasi, one that truly believes the secret police is
serving the nation as the partys sword and shield (The Lives of Others, 2006).
Other characters are also presented early on with seemingly one-dimensional personality
profiles that belie their actual complexity and the effect of circumstance on their choices. On the
surface, Georg Dreyman is a writer and ostensible foil to Wiesler. His girlfriend, Christa-Maria
Sieland, is a beautiful actress desired by all. Each appear to live relatively normal lives despite

Penrod 7

being watched by the Stasi. Then there are Anton Grubitz the Lieutenant-Colonel of the Stasi and
Minister Bruno Hemf, both of whom seem to be loyal members of the party but whose
motivations arent yet clear. As the movie progresses, we discover that, as Kovaly asserts in her
memoir, no one person is as good or bad as they seem and that the circumstances in the socialist
and separated GDR (or communist rule in the case of Kovaly) dictate choices and actions that
would otherwise seem unimaginable. Georg and Christa-Maria, for example, are artists but only
within the confines of the socialist system. That is, they only express themselves to the extent
that they will not be penalized by the state despite stating behind closed doors that they are
against the regime. Grubitz and Hemf are opportunists capitalizing on their place high up in the
system. They are motivated by desire for power and desire for Christa-Maria, respectively, and
are certainly not in their positions in the government for the sake of the party in the way Wiesler
naively initially thinks they are. While it is easy to want to divide characters into good and
bad groups, one could argue that passively going along with an oppressive system is just as
bad as manipulating it for personal gain and/or that there are reasons to be sympathetic with both
parties. Thus, The Lives of Others does an excellent job of portraying the moral ambiguities of
the time through its characters.
Another key component of The Lives of Others is its portrayal of the feeling of unease,
suspicion, and manipulation that was characteristic of life in the GDR at the time. One had to be
careful what he or she said at all times, even among friends, because it was never clear who was
an informant who was actually loyal to the party. In one exemplary scene, Grubitz makes a
subordinate repeat a joke he made to friends at the lunch table about President Erich Honecker.
While Grubitz plays it off like he doesnt mind the joke and even makes a joke himself, we later
see the student working in the cellar (he has been demoted). In another such scene, Georgs

Penrod 8

friends working with him on a piece about suicide rates in the GDR do not feel comfortable
meeting in Georgs apartment until they are sure it has not been bugged (though it has).
Additionally, the socialist system was manipulated by those in power to further their own goals,
as with when Grubitz asks Wiesler to monitor Georg in order to win favor with Hemf (who had
been rejected by Christa-Maria). In this way, even people working together for the government
could not trust each other entirely. The Lives of Others aptly shows that distrust was the main
policing factor of the socialist system as people self-censored themselves out of fear of
retribution.
Things begin to shift when Wiesler is assigned to monitor Georg and Christa-Maria. With
each day that Wiesler listens in, he comes to realize more and more the common humanity he
shares with his subjects. He reads and comes to appreciate Georgs work and, more poignantly,
begins to fall for Christa-Maria. Concurrently, Wiesler comes to realize the amount of corruption
that permeates the government within which he works, that those around him are not serving
their duties in government for the people, but rather for personal gain (the reason he was
assigned to monitor Georg and Christa-Maria was because Minister Hemf wanted Christa-Maria
for himself). Georg and Christa-Maria also undergo character changes. When Georg finds out
that Christa-Maria has been forced to sleep with Minister Hempf on multiple occasions (she is an
actress whose success depends on state approval), he wills her to also fight back by refusing to
sleep with Hemf anymore. She agrees to do so at the risk of losing her career. After the suicide of
his close friend and mentor, Albert Jerska, due to being blacklisted by the state, and inspired by
the strength of Christa-Maria to stand up for herself, Georg decides to craft a critical piece on the
suicide rates in the GDR and the fact that they are hidden from the public. Wiesler has been
listening to everything, and has every reason to report Georg and Christa-Maria for crimes

Penrod 9

against the state. Instead, indicating his character transformation, he decides to help them by
falsifying his reports.
Unfortunately, circumstances then take a turn for the worse. Hemf does not take ChristaMarias rejection lightly, and tells Grubitz to ruin her by using her illegal drug prescription as
grounds for arrest. Christa-Maria is given the opportunity to save herself in exchange for
information about the recently published suicide-rate article and she decides to inform on Georg
by telling Grubitz the location of his typewriter (which could be linked to the article via text
analysis). While, until this point, Christa-Maria has been a sympathetic and characteristically
good character, we see with this choice that circumstances in the GDR (in the same way as
with circumstances during the communist period) made people do things they never thought they
would and that the line between being good or bad is often a blurry one. Ironically, ChristaMaria does not know that Wiesler has hidden the typewriter, and when Georg finds out that she
informed on him, she is overcome by guilt and throws herself in front of a passing truck, killing
herself (adding one more person to Georgs suicide statistic piece). Further, it is clear what
Wiesler has done, and he loses his position in the government (ironic because he was the only
one of the government characters actually doing his job with the right intentions).
As we all now know, the GDR is freed in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. While it is
often rightly espoused that the fall of the wall marked the end of socialist control and a shift to a
democratic system in Germany, the legacy of the time spent under the regime is something not
often touched on. The Lives of Others points out that for everyone who lived during that time,
life was permanently altered in some way, physically, mentally, or both. Wiesler is still delivering
mail after the shift despite the goodness and integrity of his actions. Georg finds out, by looking
through the recovered Stasi file, he was betrayed completely by the love of his life (he had

Penrod 10

thought Christa-Maria was the one who hid the typewriter) and still cant quite come to terms
with his loss. In much the same way that Kovalys life was forever altered by the injustices she
suffered during the Holocaust and under the communist regime, the characters in The Lives of
Others will carry the legacy of living in socialist GDR with them for the rest of their lives.
The Lives of Others does an excellent job portraying the complexities of life under
socialism in the GDR. Like Under a Cruel Star, it is not entirely unbiased. It presents socialism
in a negative light, and the only characters presented as almost entirely bad are those working
in the Stasi or for the regime. At the same time, the film does show that day to day life in the
GDR was not all bad, that many people were able to live relatively normal lives as long as they
did not go against the state. Further, it clearly shows through its characters and their
transformations over the course of the film that people are not either good or bad, they are often
both, and that extreme circumstances can make people act in ways they never imagined they
would. More broadly, watching The Lives of Others has the effect of making one more
sympathetic to the tough choices people had to make about morality and justice while living
during socialist control.
In this essay I chose to focus on two sources that present the experience of living under a
communist regime in different forms but with related themes. The fact that these two pieces are
among thousands of others that depict particular notions of life during the communist period is
indicative of the pervasive and long-lasting impact of the regime on the lives of those who
experienced it and more generally on the development of society as a whole. Both Under a Cruel
Star and The Lives of Others take well-rounded but not unbiased stances on the subject. Under a
Cruel Star focuses on the human aspects of communism, presenting a sympathetic but
nonetheless critical evaluation of how the regime took hold and became something entirely

Penrod 11

different in practice than in theory. The Lives of Others also focuses on the experience of
individual people, critically examining the complexities of morality, choices, and the ability of
people to change in the socialist GDR. The overarching message of both seems to be that until
one goes through an experience like that of living under the communist regime, one cannot really
know how he or she would act. Moreover, they each serve as a warning as to how important it is
to be a critical and active participant in civil society, lest something like the communist regime
take hold again.

Penrod 12

Works Cited

Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others). Dir. Florian Donnersmarck. Wiedemann & Berg
Filmproduktion , 2007. DVD.

Kovaly, Heda. Under a Cruel Star: A Life in Prague 1941-1968. Cambridge, Mass.: Plunkett
Lake Press, 1986. Print.

Penrod 13