Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Dramas
>
The Reader
date
newest »
newest »
Much as I like Kate Winslet I'm hoping she and this film go home empty-handed. It is one of the most wrong-headed films I've seen in recent years. A review I did for one of my papers follows:(Warning: if you haven’t seen “The Reader” and don’t want to be “spoiled” concerning certain plot twists, don’t read this review.)
“The Reader” is nominated for five Oscars including best picture and best actress for Kate Winslet. On Oscar night I will be rooting for it to lose, not merely because I don’t like it, but because it is a movie of incredible moral obtuseness.
The story is told in flashback by Michael (Ralph Fiennes), a German attorney. In the 1950s, at the age of 15, he is seduced by Hanna (Winslet), a streetcar conductor. Of course if this were an older man having sex with a 15-year-old girl, he would be considered a child molester. Keeping with our double standards, it is instead seen as the boy’s coming of age. Michael reads aloud to her and Hanna offers her body in return.
A decade passes, and Michael is now in law school. While sitting in at a war crimes trial who should he see but Hanna… as one of the defendants. In the film’s key moment, the women – all former guards at Auschwitz – are asked to read a document and confess to their complicity in atrocities. The women all deny it, but Hanna confesses and her co-defendants instantly agree. It rings false. We soon find out that Hanna has confessed to being a war criminal in preference to avoid admitting something that is a source of deep shame: she is illiterate.
Got that? Hanna would rather be imprisoned for committing war crimes at Auschwitz than admit she can’t read. The film’s defenders would have us believe this is a stirring tribute to the importance of literacy and the power of the written word, but is this really the way to get that message across? Michael starts recording himself reading aloud and sending Hanna the tapes. When she dies, he is given her meager assets, which he attempts to give to the daughter (Lena Olin) of one of the survivors who testified at her trial. The woman refuses but suggests he donate it to a Jewish charity to fight illiteracy, noting wryly that few of their clientele are Jewish.
Hanna is presented as a tragic figure, a pathetic victim who deserves our sympathy. She apparently atones for her sins through her love of literature. The clear message of the movie is that illiteracy is a soul-crushing burden while working at a death camp is a comparatively minor matter. Now perhaps the novel is different. I haven’t read it. While I am a committed reader, I don’t feel obligated to read the books of the movies I see, since most viewers won’t have either. A movie has to stand on its own. For those who insist that the novel will answer my questions, I can only note there is a name for a film that cannot be understood without having read the book.
It’s called a failure.
Wow, Daniel M., I couldn't disagree more. I didn't get the impression that "the film is meant to be a stirring tribute to the importance of literacy and the power of the written word" at all. I felt it was a film about Nazi guilt. I didn't feel that the film portrayed Hanna as a victim in any sense. In fact, it was difficult not to hate her. It's a tribute to Kate Winslet that she was able to create a character so lacking in morals, but who still invokes a sense of pity in the viewer. In my opinion, Hanna is portrayed as overly-proud (would rather go to jail than admit she can't read) and cold-hearted but certainly not a victim. I have to say I think you missed the point entirely.
And I have to say that if the movie had a different point it wasn't able to articulate it very well.Clearly we're supposed to feel sorry for her even if we also condemn her. I've even heard the argument that the movie is really about HIS moral dilemma, but I remain unconvinced.
What I took from the film was that she'd rather confess to atrocities she may not have committed rather than admit she can't read. Illiteracy is a terrible thing. War crimes, not so much.
Daniel, She killed herself the day before she was supposed to get out of prison rather than face a society in which she would be a complete pariah. She left her pathetic life-savings to the victim of her personal atrocities. How does that leave you with the impression that war crimes are not so terrible?
I don't think that a comparison between what is worse - illeracy vs. war crimes - was the point at all. Hannah was a very strong, proud and independent character. One need not even feel sympathy for her because she was illiterat. I don't think she showed any kind of atonement, other than at the end when she left her meager savings to the author of the book. Given Hannah's character, I was not even surprised that she did not admit to her inability to read and write. It was her choice, clearly, and she took ownership of the crime, as well as the punishment. She was proud; she was cold; she was independent; she was pretty much a recluse, i.e. lived alone, and had no personal contact with anyone other than Michael. Did she have feelings for him, or did she use him....? Obviously, Michael did not rush to her rescue when he was witnessing the trial; the scene where he went to the camps and showed the shoes and the ovens....and at the trial itself when they told of the fire in the church. It was all very raw and I think showed it as the atrocity it was.
Even though one may not agree with the story, I don't think Kate Winslet should be denied the oscar I think she so deserves.
As far a the movie, I think Slumdog is going to take it....although I am not personally on the Slumdog bandwagon.
I don't think Winslet or "Slumdog" deserve it, but there are many unworthies who walked away with an Oscar.Nothing against Winslet. She simply didn't make any good movies in 2008.
As for my "misreading" of "The Reader," check out what Ron Rosenbaum had to say in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2210804/pagen...
I've never heard of The Slate or Ron Rosenbaum but congratulations on finding someone else who misread the movie. As for other reviews, I'm sure everyone has heard of this one:http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/p...
I'm not responsible for what you have or have not heard of. Rosenbaum is a respected author and Slate is one of the premiere online opinion journals.We're obviously not going to convince each other. I don't believe I misread the movie. I think it's a very badly made movie with a very muddled and confused message, and clearly I'm not the only one who thinks that.
Now that they are over, I couldn't be happier that Kate Winslet won. I'm quite surprised that you, Daniel, didn't think that her performances in either The Reader or Revolutionary Roady were good performances. anyway....til next year!
DanielI too think you are far from the mark. The essential moral dilemma and the principle import of the story was the hero`s unwillingness to contest the injustice done to the Winslet character.
When the professor and the three law students are hobnobbing after class and discussing the moral culpability of the Nazi atrocities, the one decries the moral indifference of the German people over the atrocities when they were being committed. This is the moral gist of the story-how is it that people who are essentially good, can remain on the sidelines when a nation is so hellbent on barbarism?
The movie addresses exactly that moral dilemma.
In the book, the moral cowardice of the hero stultifies his relationship with women from that point until years later. In the book, his moral angst is more strongly portrayed, and for that I find it the stronger work of art.
But Kate not deserving an Oscar???!!!!
And your feeble attempt at justifying your remarks with the backing of a single critic who has likewise missed the mark....Shame
I thought the acting was superb; the story, touching, horrific, very emotional. SPOILER ALERTS: The scene that touched me the most was when he walked into the "cafeteria" just after the inmates finished lunch and we see Hannah from behind....; also when he was going to visit Hannah in prison to talk about her illiteracy, but then he turned around and did not go and she was left waiting; and when he went to the camp and saw the shoes.....
thoughts out there, anyone?