Conflict has proven a regular subject of artistic work, as composers are motivated to represent their perspectives on people and politics through an exploration of competing interests within individuals. W.H. Auden’s poems ‘Unknown Citizen’ and ‘September 1 1939’, both written in 1939, and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s 2007 film ‘The Lives of Others’ represent the conflict between the desire to conform and rebel. Both composers use the structural and literary devices of their medium to emphasise the need for political action in the face of oppression to protect personal freedoms.
Nice concise introduction here, good conceptual Thesis, you could delve a bit more into the idea of conflict, exactly what about it will you be exploring/accentuating? Effective start, however 
In ‘The Unknown Citizen’, Auden represents the conflict between conformity and freedom by satirising the submission of the eponymous citizen to the will of the state, reflecting on the futility of compliance under societal regimes.
Excellent start to the paragraph, well considered and clever. The iambic tetrameter and rhyming couplets of the poem, ‘Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views, for his Union reports that he paid his dues’, create a regular pattern, placing emphasis on the citizen’s ‘views and dues’ to suggest his conformity to society.
Who is "his" there? If it is the character, shift the wording there to avoid retell. Auden ironically compares his citizen to the Unknown soldier, symbolic of national service, to suggest the virtue of compliance under societal regimes. Yet the tongue-in-cheek tone of the elegy, whose style suggests intimate understanding of the citizen, insinuates such knowledge is impossible. Instead the rhetorical questions ‘Was he free? Was he happy?’ challenge responders to consider the flawed nature of state control, highlighting the irrationality of conformity.
Fabulous analytical style here birdwing, very hard to fault!‘The Lives of Others’ similarly condemns the intrusion of authority into the realm of personal belief through a representation of conflicting interests of Stasi agent Wiesler and playwright Georg Dreyman in socialist East Germany.
Try to keep the starts of each section audience focused, particularly for a speech. Avoid plot retells (however brief), your audience knows it well already. Von Donnersmarck characterises Wiesler through his grey clothing and the drab décor of his house which serve as metonymy for his lack of individuality, much like the conformed ‘views’ of Auden’s citizen. Wiesler is contrasted to Dreyman, whose house is colourful and homely, yet belief in the state is similar – seen in his insistent reply to an accusation he colluded with the Stasi by his moral foil, Paul, ‘I don’t know that’, and further highlighted in the mid-shot of Paul’s subsequent departure.
Careful, slipping a bit into retell here, any time you are saying "Character said this" or "This happened to the character", chances are you are relling. Yet von Donnersmarck utilises dramatic irony, contrasting Dreyman’s faith in the state against their clear intrusion into his privacy, established by the repeated switch of focus between both characters. Thus von Donnersmarck condemns the conformity of individuals to such regimes.
Nice.
Instead, Auden’s poem ‘September 1 1939’ represents the necessity of political action as a response to the conflict between subservience and subversiveness. Written in response to the outbreak of World War Two, Auden notes that ‘the conventions conspire to make this fort assume the furniture of home’, recognising the allure of state-propagated distraction through the metaphoric likening of a bar to a ‘fort’, yet undermining its credibility through the treacherous connotations of ‘conspire’.
Nice contextual link here! Instead Auden utilises repetition of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’, ‘lest we should see where we are, lost in a haunted wood’, to stimulate audience engagement, challenging responders to observe the reality of war in contrast to the symbolic ‘wood’ of isolationism.
Awesome. Auden’s understated conclusion ‘may I…[too]…show an affirming flame’ ironically belies his ultimate purpose in inspiring individuals to respond to their own situation with political action to protect their personal freedoms.
Von Donnersmarck concurs with Auden’s desire for individuals to express their political beliefs, representing the importance of action through Dreyman and Wiesler’s responses to their conflicting of will.
I like that you are linking your texts as you go! Dreyman’s growing dissatisfaction is depicted in a close-up of his anguished face as he declares ‘I want to change so much’ which, coupled with simplistic low modality language, starkly reminds responders of the necessity of action, in contrast to Auden’s Americans, who embraced the distractions ‘of home’.
Slightly retell at the start there, try to just use the technique and limit the explanation of how it works in terms of the characters themselves, you can go your whole speech without them if you choose! Additionally, Wiesler’s disillusionment with societal oppression is revealed in his deliberate ignorance of Dreyman’s actions, emphasised by his non-diagetic voiceover as Dreyman action, which reinforces his role in undermining the authority of the state. The paralleled accounts of Dreyman and Wiesler reinforce the significance of their separate actions, reminding audiences of the necessity of action as a response to the conflict between conformity and freedom under societal oppression.
Therefore, an analysis of Auden and von Donnersmarck’s works reveal the need to respond to societal oppression with political action. Through their exploration of the conflicting interests of conformity and freedom, their perspective on people