Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Foreign Films
>
The Reader (Stephen Daldrey, 2008)
date
newest »
newest »
Thanks Phillip, I have this one saved in my queue for future release. Can't wait.
I'm excited to see this one also....thank you for the summary...just made me want to see it even more!
I saw all of the Best Picture Nominations, the Reader was the last one I saw. It was by far my favorite. I didn't expect it to get the best picture, but it did in my book! Powerful; I wanted to talk about it after I had seen it, yet on the other hand, I needed time to digest and reflect. Superb acting performances, filming.
yeah, the only thing that seemed painfully out of place was the makeup on kate winslet when she was playing her character as an elder woman. i thought the makeup job was kind of bad in those scenes.
that's interesting because i thought her makeup was done well in those scenes. one of the scenes that most affected me was when he walked into the cafeteria (for lack of a better word) and saw her from behind. you just knew that she was an old woman by the clothing, the posture, etc etc.
yeah, it was more the makeup on her forehead that seemed to be out of place...they obviously put a layer of something on there so they could produce a lot of wrinkles. i'm fine with wrinkles, but they seemed excessively thick....whatever, this is a small consideration. i agree with you, physically she did a fine job of portraying her character as an elder.
I actually found this movie lacking. I had a hard time getting involved with it and I didn't care for the story. Truly believe it should not have been nominated as one of the best movies of the year. There were others that were far superior in all areas.
I haven't seen this one yet. Has anyone read the book?
i have not read the book, meg.i want to clarify (if my "review" didn't already do so), that i don't believe this to be a perfect film. i believe i called it a "fine film on a difficult subject". i think there is some moral ambiguity going on here, and not all of it is intended. i don't think the filmmaker is completely clear on what he has to say on this subject, or subjects. i thought some aspects of the film were handled well, but again, it's not a perfect movie.
THE READER was my favorite film of 2008.The movie grabbed me from the start and kept me mesmerized, my eyes often moist, until the very end.
Yes, the morality issues are somewhat ambiguous, but I could identify with the young man and I understood the Kate Winslet character, even though I certainly didn't condone her acts.
I don't believe she was an "evil" person (i.e. like Hitler). For lack of a better word, she was "stupid," and she did what she did because she didn't know any better.
Weren't a lot of the war criminals in WW2 like that?
No, most of the war criminals were NOT like that. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Daniel Goldhagen. Germans had choices as to whether they wanted to take on these assignments. These were WILLING people and many of them took special glee in the brutality and death they visited upon their victims.
The idea that Winslet's character was "stupid" and a victim herself is one of the worst messages of "The Reader."
Of course, the Germans had choices...and I'm not suggesting that they should be forgiven for the terrible choices that the made.What makes THE READER stand out is the fact that it doesn't equate all of the war criminals to Hitler or Himler. Germans went along with the Nazi plan for various reasons...often without considering the consequences.
The Kate Winslet character was, as said, "stupid". She couldn't read and that shamed her. She became a camp guard because it was a way to better herself... and everything she did after that was because she was following orders...because she didn't know any better.
Forgiveness, no. Understanding the reasons why something like the Holocaust could occur, absolutly.
I have to completely disagree with your comments. It's not merely "understanding" her, it's excusing her: she was stupid, she was trying to better herself, she didn't know any better.Read Goldhagen's book. The people who did what she did DID know better, and they willingly did it. They may not have been instigators but they were full accomplices.
Committing atrocities was not simply a "terrible choice." It was mass murder with full knowledge of what one was doing.
You are preaching to the choir.The difference between this movie and most other Holocaust films is that the war criminal (i.e. Winslet) is not presented as black-and-white evil. Her color is gray, which doesn't excuse anything that she did. It just helps us understand why she did it.
No, it really doesn't. It makes excuses for her.But I fear we're not going to convince each other.
Her tragedy is that she never does really understand... even after spending years in prison.But, I do agree that we are not going to convince each other.
No, the tragedy is that people died because of willing murderers like her.I don't give a damn about "her" tragedy. She is a murderer, and a willing accomplice.
And that's the problem with the movie. It's about "her" tragedy.
If you understand WHY a person does terrible things, then perhaps you can prevent somebody else from also doing those terrible things.Continually painting Nazis as totally evil without letting us know WHY they became that way is not helpful. They become caricatures, and it is important that we see them as real people.
Yes, they are murderers and should be punished. There is no disagreement in that.
My sympathy in the film was for the young man and how his relationship with this older woman affected his entire life. I had a similar relationship when I was quite young (not with a war criminal) and I understood his confusion and pain.
Although I've not seen it, I think that Tom Cruise's film, VALKERIE, has a worse problem than THE READER. It's my understanding that the film paints Cruise and his fellow conspirators as heroes because of their plan to kill Hitler. However, I'm told that they never even acknowledge the Holocaust.
And, these are the people we're supposed to admire?
SPOILERS:I think the message is that Winslet's character trapped herself because of her own shame and lies. She had a history of doing well on a job until it would become obvious that she couldn't read. Then she joined the SS after leaving a job and again was trapped by it. The witness says that she was different in how she chose the weekly victims, and I don't think the implication was kind.
I guess I didn't understand her deep shame in not being able to read or write. Especially for that time frame, I can't imagine it being unusual. I wonder if the book delved into it more. Would you reveal something you thought shameful to avoid prison? And what is more shameful than letting innocent people die trapped in a burning building?
as i said above, the morality is pretty ambigious in this film, and i think that is partly intended, but also partly a problem with the film. i see the film as something different than what some of you have been arguing. to me, it's a film about the psychological fallout of the third reich and how that effects generations to come (the young man). it's a story about a culture haunted by its past.
i see the story told from the POV of the ralph fiennes character - a story about a guy who was effected emotionally by this relationship. it's he that is lured away from friends and family by this relationship. it's he that cannot speak out in her defense - it's he that can't manage successful relationships because of his past with her. it is he that finally breaks the spell, but only after her death.
after winslet's death, he begins to open up about this relationship to his daughter, and that's the change we're looking for, the resolution at the end. i was more focused on his angle of the story, so the film was more satisfying for me.
i felt the whole aspect of responsibility (with regard to the camps) was where the film kind of veered out of control, or rather, that's where all the moral ambibuity is that doesn't get resolved. but we all know that regardless of how "willing" anyone was that worked at those camps, they HAVE to take responsibility for what happened there (and it's clear the other women on trial are trying to sidestep that responsibility), so the kate winslet character becomes the scapegoat.
back to makeup...how about her FEET at the end!?!?!WOW. Having to live with those feet is a fair punishment for any war crimes she may have comitted.
(That's a joke Daniel M. Don't get your political panties in a bunch. No one thinks bad feet are an appropriate punishment for genocide.*pat, pat, pat*)
Does anyone know if they are Kate Winslet's feet with makeup or if they used someone else's feet? I hope they hired a foot double. It would be nice to know there was some money to be made from having feet like that. ouch!
My objections to the film are not "politcal."Guess you kind of put your foot in it. :)
I didt see this movie cuz I dont go to movies about readers I mean thats why I go to movies so I dont have to read! LOL! I have 2 ask tho how cum yer all being so mean to Daniel! Hes so smart and funny and hes a reel critic who rites reviews and stuff!
Nobody is being mean to Daniel.We're having an intelligent discussion, and we just have differing points of view.
hey daniel, have i been mean to you lately?
Phillip wrote: "hey daniel, have i been mean to you lately?"Not lately. :)
Cutiepie wrote: "I didt see this movie cuz I dont go to movies about readers I mean thats why I go to movies so I dont have to read! LOL! I have 2 ask tho how cum yer all being so mean to Daniel! Hes so smart and..."I don't know who you are, Cutiepie, but I adore you.
The movie is certainly controversial, and I'm not even going to get into that ethical dilemma question... I have lived in Israel for a year, and absolutely abhor what the Nazis did... but literature, and movies, are neither of them a medium for a singular "truth" -- they're simply someone's views on things which are in turn being interpreted differently by every single audience member. Anyhow... I saw the movie today and while the first part of it was excellent and very captivating, the film lost something vital (its heart and soul maybe) when the young Michael was gone and was replaced by the weary (but as always convincing) Ralph Fiennes. The rest of the film seemed dull and lifeless in comparison, perhaps because that's what was intended... its life blood ran out.
And, once more, this was yet another film with too many endings. Will they ever learn? *sigh*
good point on the too many endings.....
The Reader made me wonder about the many people I have met all over the world who seemed so normal. I wonder if any of them had anything to do with all the genicide etc. It was so hard to accept the fact that this woman is more ashamed of not being able to read and write than she is of taking part in Mass murder.But she made us believe it. She is a great actress.
I had nightmares after seeing this movie. Maryanne
Some spoilers here and there.For me the most interesting aspect of the film is the complete unwillingness of the main character to seek forgiveness or redemption. She doesn't believe for a moment it's possible or would have any meaning whatever if she did try. The dead will remain dead. She could have ameliorated her sentencing, but refuses to even try, not simply out of her shame in her inability to read, and in the end pays far more for her honesty than any of the other, possibly more deserving guards, but it's hardly more than she deserves based on her actions. She doesn't complain about the sentence, she makes no effort to portray herself as a victim of it in any sense or gives any indication that she feels she is. and when her sentence is complete...
What do we make of her boy lover's refusal to take any action to help her, when clearly he could have done? What of Ganz's questions to him in that scene that if he doesn't tell what he knows what have we (the Germans, humanity) learned? The answer is clearly, nothing. Really there's no effort to find redemption for her from anyone or for anyone else. And then there's the final scene in New York where one of her surviving victims refuses to say or do anything that might be misconstrued as forgiveness, as none is possible. and what did this victim herself learn from her experience? Nothing. the camps were not a school. there is nothing redemptive for the survivors either. Death and horror cannot be redeemed at all by some sort of transformative effect on the survivors. It's an incredibly bleak and uncompromising point of view. Contrast this to Schindler if you like.
As for the point of view of the perpetrators of the Holocaust, it's clearly a portrayal of the banality of evil. There's no indication that she really cares about Jews one way or the other. she's not motivated by ideology, political opinion, prejudice, whatever, she has none whatever. She simply sees the guard job as a step up for her, primarily on financial grounds. She takes the job with few illusions as far as we can tell. she has a job, she does it, without any personal emotion or emotional connection to the victims. she follows her orders wherever they take her however extreme, and that's about all there is to her actions or motivations.
We want more explanation, more context to understand, but none is forthcoming. In reality, no possible explanation can or will suffice seems to be the theme here. She has done monstrous things but lacks monstrous motivation, so why did she do them? She's hardly stupid, but she is ignorant and uneducated in general. However, that itself is no excuse and it isn't offered as one, quite the opposite. She knew what she was signing up for and shrank from nothing. So, in the end, it doesn't really matter why, she did it, and that's enough.
wow, great points (and questions) george. i really like your reading on this. you seem to have a really great grasp on the slants of morality.
Massive SPOILERS...
The reader opens in Germany in the early 1950's. The protagonist is a teenage boy who is riding home on a tram after school. He gets off the train and, because he isn't feeling well, he steps into the entrance of a courtyard to an apartment building for a moment's rest. He vomits, and a woman who is coming home from work (Kate Winslet) sees him and offers to help. She takes him up to her apartment, helps clean him and makes some tea. He pulls himself together and goes home.
It turns out he has scarlet fever and spends the next several weeks in bed. once he gets back on his feet, he decides to go back to the woman's apartment to leave a little gift to thank her for her kindness. She greets him at the door, invites him in, and they begin to have an affair that lasts for what seems like a few years. One of the things they do together (besides making love) is that she enjoys being read to...and he reads several books to her.
She disappears mysteriously one day and the young man is shaken. she has become very important to him. He has neglected his family and friends for this clandestine relationship and without her, he feels lost.
Jettison ten years down the road...the young man is in law school. His professor (played by the great Bruno Ganz) takes his class to witness a trial, where several women have been charged with (Nazi) war crimes. Our young hero discovers that one of the defendants is the woman he had the affair with.
This is merely the set-up. The film continues by exploring how this woman was used by the court as a kind of pawn...Germany is anxious to show its humanity by bringing prison camp guards to justice (despite the fact that they were following orders handed down by their superiors, none of which are on trial). The character played by Winslet is wrongfully scapegoated, and our young hero discovers a clue to her innocence, but does nothing to clear her name.
She goes off to serve a life sentence in prison and as the young man ages he develops a correspondence with her (at this point, Ralph Fiennes portrays the young man as an adult). Part of what the movie is up to is to illustrate how this man's life was damaged by this relationship. It's possible the filmmaker uses the inappropriate relations between this young man and a much older woman to create an allegory to illustrate how this history has damaged German citizens emotionally and psychologically.
The film has an unusual ending and resolve. I think it's a fine film on a difficult and controversial subject. The performances are all excellent and I think it does a great job of capturing the various periods (50's, 60's, 70's) in Germany. While it may seem that I have given everything away, there are a lot of plot lines and subtleties to the story that I have left out.
In English, 124 minutes