The Reader

[poetman]

Another good period piece:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976051/

 

[Mr. 'H']

I just saw this yesterday. It was very engrossing. A good 2 hour + meaty drama. I loved it. Very sad though....

 

[Edward]

Most of thed press buzz aboutg it over here seems to have centred on Kate Winslet's lack of costume.... how big a deal is that? I mean, I'm not a total prude, but I am becoming more intolerant of gratuitous *** scenes than I used to be. Hey, if sall I wanted to see was *******, I could stay home and do that online for free....

 

[imoldfashioned]

It seems especially silly to get worked up about a Winslet **** scene--seems like she has one in practically every film she does (and very true about the Internet).

I'm intrigued by this film but waiting for more reviews from folks I know.

Most of thed press buzz aboutg it over here seems to have centred on Kate Winslet's lack of costume.... how big a deal is that? I mean, I'm not a total prude, but I am becoming more intolerant of gratuitous *** scenes than I used to be. Hey, if sall I wanted to see was *******, I could stay home and do that online for free....

 

[Edward]

It seems especially silly to get worked up about a Winslet **** scene--seems like she has one in practically every film she does (and very true about the Internet).

Well, quite! I suppose the press in general would just prefer to write about her "real ****ies" (thank-you, Oprah) than discuss the issues raised by the film. [huh] Shame, as actually it sounds to me like a very intriguing story that doesn't deserve to have that sort of, eh, distraction. Unless the producers don't have the faith in their story to draw in a sufficient mainstream audience and so have decided to opt for the '*** sells' approach?

 

[imoldfashioned]

Alas I think most producers head straight for the "*** sells" approach. Despite that, I'm intrigued--I'll try to see it. This past year has been awfully weak for film, so I try to grab anything that looks decent before it disappears.

And, please, don't get me started on Oprah!

Well, quite! I suppose the press in general would just prefer to write about her "real ****ies" (thank-you, Oprah) than discuss the issues raised by the film. [huh] Shame, as actually it sounds to me like a very intriguing story that doesn't deserve to have that sort of, eh, distraction. Unless the producers don't have the faith in their story to draw in a sufficient mainstream audience and so have decided to opt for the '*** sells' approach?

 

[Laura Chase]

I saw it yesterday and it touched me deeply.

The emotional side:
The portrayal of the young man's ***ual awakening and his relationship to Hannah, the older women (Kate Winslet's character) was breathtaking, it took me back to my early teenage years. It's the stuff of the hottest young teenage fantasies, to be frank, and this worked really well and to the film's advantage. Some people might not feel the first part of the movie, the part where they mostly have *** and he reads to her and then they have *** and take baths and have more *** (my friend didn't quite feel it), but for me, it was perfect and made me relate to Michael Berg's emotions when he later realizes what Hannah has participated in.

So guys, the ***-side of the movie you are discussing above is actually, in my opinion, quite important for the entire movie. All the **** shots of Winslet's character Hannah (and of the young boy playing Michael Berg, you see him, the male lead, completely naked and vulnerable, which is rare in movies) serve a purpose.

SPOILERS HERE!
The intellectual side:
Well, this was the whole SS guard issue, how justice is served, and what makes people do things, that to us, standing on the outside and looking in, seem so obviously wrong and evil. Basically, it made one think of the banality of evil (cf. Hannah Arendt). What is justice? What made normal Germans sign up for the SS, even after it was clear to everyone that the jews were being exterminated?

During her trial, Hannah asks the judge a very expressive question. He asks her why they let 300 jewish women burn to death, why they did not unlock the door. Hannah replied that they were guards and responsible for these people, and if they opened the door, there would be chaos and their prisoners would flee. They were guards so they could not unlock the door and let them flee. She asks the judge "What would you have done?" - a question loaded with significance, historical as well as human.

SPOILERS HERE TOO!
If I have to criticize anything, although I'm really totally positive when it comes to this movie, it would be the whole illiteracy thing. Hannah is illiterate, and by the end of the movie she learns to read. The movie can be analyzed as giving special significance to reading. It can be seen as promoting words, reading, literacy as something almost redemptive. It can be analyzed in a thousand ways, and I am not annoyed by this primacy words get, but it can be viewed as a flaw and lack of nuance.

 

[Spitfire]

Just come back from the cinema after watching The Reader.
It was amazing. All the way.
5 out of 5 stars in my book.

 

[Laura Chase]

Glad you liked it, Spitfire, you have good taste.

Anyone else seen this yet? Curious to hear what people think.

 

[PADDY]

I liked it.

Highly recommend it.

 

[stephen1965]

The idea of *** in this film is not gratuitous or appreciationographic in the slightest...it's an interesting story which makes pertinent points about collective responsibility. Laura's point about the importance given to 'reading' didn't detract in my opinion. The film ultimately seemed to be about the value of communicating and sharing...I hope this doesn't sound trite. It's a good film.

 

[Laura Chase]

The idea of *** in this film is not gratuitous or appreciationographic in the slightest...it's an interesting story which makes pertinent points about collective responsibility. Laura's point about the importance given to 'reading' didn't detract in my opinion. The film ultimately seemed to be about the value of communicating and sharing...I hope this doesn't sound trite. It's a good film.

I agree, it didn't detract from the movie overall, at all. It's just a good point to be aware of.

In what way do you mean that the movie is about "the value of communicating and sharing", I'm not sure I understand.

 

[scotrace]

This is a very intimate film.

I saw it awhile ago (I was the only person in the audience that night!) but had not seen this thread before today. The Reader kept me thinking for a week after seeing it. What Laura Chase said above is very much in keeping with my impressions. The audience needed to understand the depth of this young man's connection with his lover to understand his terrible lifelong inner torment over it later.
An excellent film. Kate Winslet is an extraordinary actress and she gave one of the very best performances I've ever seen. To be able to portray, believably, the reasoning behind why a person could go along with such monstrous acts without seeing them as such... astonishing work.
Yes, the moral of "illiteracy - ignorance - is a dangerous thing to society" is a little heavy handed in the abstract, but here I think it was presented in such a way that I didn't feel that way. I felt mostly pity for someone who was just, at the end of the day, trying to survive with precious little to carry her.

 

[ClaraB]

Consider if the film had started with the trial and had only flashed back to Michael's affair with Hanna, I don't think the film would have had the impact it did, or that the audience would have fully understood the connection Michael had with Hanna. Not only is this a well told and emotional story, it portrays an interesting yet difficult part of history.

I loved this film. I haven't seen anything lately that has kept me so captivated from start to finish.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Consider if the film had started with the trial and had only flashed back to Michael's affair with Hanna, I don't think the film would have had the impact it did, or that the audience would have fully understood the connection Michael had with Hanna.

Yes. The film's power came from having us 'live' it through it as Michael did.

.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I just saw it yesterday on DVD. Yet another great performance by Kate Winslet - and an outstanding old-age makeup job. Quite a few interesting ideas in the story too. A downer, but powerful and worthwhile.

I only have two complaints:

Ralph Fiennes and the younger actor didn't look enough alike for me to really accept them as the same person... apart from the film's insisting on it. This struck me especially in the flashbacks where there's only 15 years difference between them. Also, Fiennes looked no younger in his "earliest" appearances in the 1970s than he did at the conclusion in 1995. By the same token, the kid's 1958 and 1966 versions didn't really look sufficiently changed to me either. (Considering how hard they worked to believably age Winslet's character, this seemed odd.)

The flashback structure struck me as unnecessary and needlessly complex. I think the film would have worked much better in a straight chronological telling. It didn't need to keep hammering the "why is he so bitter and emotionally constrained?" mystery along with all its other heavy dramatic freight.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The flashback structure struck me as unnecessary and needlessly complex. I think the film would have worked much better in a straight chronological telling. It didn't need to keep hammering the "why is he so bitter and emotionally constrained?" mystery along with all its other heavy dramatic freight.

Agree 100%.


.