The Reader directed by Stephen Daldry, based on the book by Bernhard Schlink, starring Ralph Fiennes as Michael Berg and Kate Winslet as Hanna Schmitz, chronicles a young man's run-in with a mysterious woman in post-war Germany and his subsequent attempts to grapple with silence, complicity, and a dark secret. This is as intriguing as the film gets so I'll proceed with spoilers galore.
And Justice for All
The story centers on a small town teenage boy, Michael Berg (initially played by David Kross) who is overcome by a bout of scarlet fever and is helped by a mysterious woman, Hanna Schmitz. She takes him to her apartment to recover and, in no time, he's helping her shovel coal into her furnace and, wouldn't you know it, the young man gets a nice case of soot-in-the-face and has to wash up, with Ms. Schmitz’s skillful assistance of course.
Before long, young Mr. Berg is having passionate sex with Hanna in exchange for reading his book assignments to her. Berg is clearly in love with Hanna though she shows little interest in the emotional dimension of their relationship. In due course she walks out of his life without warning and the young boy grows up a heart broken loner. He goes off to law school where he becomes a pupil of Professor Rohl (Bruno Ganz). As Professor Rohl, Ganz gives one of his more lethargic performances here. As an aside, though, I must say that the sight of an actor who gave the definitive portrayal of Hitler (Downfall) now playing a law school professor focused on confronting Nazi atrocities has an ironic grandeur that's for the ages.
As part of a class assignment, Berg and his class watch a war crime trial of concentration camp guards. Among the defendants is (surprise!) Hanna. Berg is devastated though when a crucial piece of evidence of her supposed signature is introduced at trial, implicating her in the order to kill wartime prisoners, Berg sits by quietly watching rather than reveal exculpatory evidence (she can't read or write) which could lighten her sentence.
Years after her conviction and imprisonment Berg, now a judge (played by Ralph Fiennes), begins a read-by-mail correspondence with Hanna, sending her tape recordings of his book readings. She learns to read and write thanks to him but before things get too cheery she reveals her unrepentant attitude as to her part in The Holocaust and hangs herself. There's some frivolous dreck about Fiennes having a daughter with whom he barely speaks following a divorce. His tight lipped character finally opens up to his daughter and reveals his dark past. Insert catharsis here.
Nazis are People Too
While these are all beautiful metaphors for Germany and Germans’ continuing struggle with collective feelings of guilt over their sometimes silent complicity in The Holocaust the actual story does little to effectively convey these ideas. Berg is the good side of Germany - urbane, compassionate, and committed to justice. Hanna is Germany's dark past - cold, detached, ignorant and unrepentant. This is the stuff of great drama. It is also a case study in how a great idea and metaphors alone do not a great drama make. Moments where the film had the potential to get interesting, namely Berg missing out on the romances of youth because of his infatuation with Hanna, are completely squandered and we are instead ushered into humdrum courtroom proceedings and characters pontificating on Germany's complicity in The Holocaust.
One would hope that the characters would perhaps compensate for the subpar plot. No luck there, caballero. There is an absolute lack of character development which leads to little empathy for Hanna even when, towards the end, the film seems to demand it. I asked myself what the film was getting at. Are we supposed to feel empathy for a camp guard who kills women and children and yet the film does little to humanize? If the film is unwilling to commit itself exploring this controversial emotional thesis (can a monster be humanized?), why should I? How can you expect anyone in the audience to empathize with the supposedly complicated emotional waters Berg is navigating when the writer and director have little interest in building fully realized and complex characters to go on the journey with?
For the Home Crowd
This is one of those films that do the opposite of what great stories are supposed to. Rather than gleaning universal themes and insights about the human condition from unique events and people, this film inverts the formula and creates a story which can only gain resonance by depending on the collective guilt of the audience whose history it chronicles (i.e. Germans).
As the film unspooled, with its focus on themes of guilt, complicity, and forgiveness, I had the creeping suspicion that this film would pack quite an emotional wallop had I had more than just an outsider's historical knowledge about post-war Germany. It felt like it would be a great film if only I could access the deep emotions it's trying to convey or I had grown up in post-war Germany. The Godfather, by way of contrast, illustrates how films should work. While The Godfather is about Italians you don’t have to be Italian for its themes to resonate.
Nazis, Soft Porn, and Ralph Fiennes
Another problem with the film is that it seems to rely on the sophisticated notion that simply because it deals with a "European" subject-matter somehow "artistic" full-frontal shots and passionate sex scenes are, in themselves, character development. Perhaps they are, but what we are left with once the copious amount of “character exposition” is complete is a cast of cardboard characters with little to keep our interest. The characters lack the very complexity which leads to compelling drama and forward narrative momentum.
If we wouldn't accept a vacuous low-budget Rambo film as Oscar-worthy material why should we accept one that shields itself by relying on Nazis, soft porn, and Ralph Fiennes? I hate it when these empty films shroud themselves in pretense and "serious" subject matter as a means of deflecting criticism. It’s an iron trap: If you don't see the point of all the nudity and sex then you're just not sophisticated enough to "understand" the film. If you complain that the characters are cardboard cutouts then you rely too much on American notions of plot, character, and conflict.
The Reader seems to have gotten just the right angle and actors to pull off this overrated puff piece. Ralph Fiennes is interesting in just about anything he does and he goes far with what little he's given here. He does an excellent job of conveying the quiet guilt that has gnawed at this man's soul for decades. Kate Winslet beautifully incarnates the sociopathic detachment of Hanna. Nonetheless, the material does little to deepen their characters beyond these basic traits.
Final Thoughts
The Reader ultimately conveys a single-minded determination to undermine its own great potential. Where we could have had a rich and complex exploration of people reconciling and atoning for a horrific past we instead get shorthand story telling and sketches of characters. Great actors and serious subject matter are supposed to put the emotional heft and meat onto this emaciated narrative and somehow we are supposed to really feel the story. Rarely does this kind of gamble work. With The Reader it failed miserably.
Note to Reader: Walk before you run. Learn to Write before you Read.
Post Script
Oh, and one last thing. I’m a sucker for the beautiful manipulations of advertising. I tip my hat when a good ad can make an awful movie look exciting, interesting, etc. I admire how an advertising department works with what’s there on film, rearranges it to highlight the good stuff, and gets you to shell out those hard-earned ten dollars for a ticket. The good ads may misrepresent but they don’t lie. But The Reader hit a new low! Oh, how you cheated me!
The movie poster features a prominent photograph of a youthful Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes together in the same frame, same shot, same photograph, and a blurb “How far would you go to protect a secret?” Good stuff! All this only to watch the movie and realize that I had been lied to by the photo on the poster. The youthful Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes never share a frame of film together. We only see them together at the very end of the film, for 15 minutes! That’s it! Bad form, people! Bad form!
And Justice for All
The story centers on a small town teenage boy, Michael Berg (initially played by David Kross) who is overcome by a bout of scarlet fever and is helped by a mysterious woman, Hanna Schmitz. She takes him to her apartment to recover and, in no time, he's helping her shovel coal into her furnace and, wouldn't you know it, the young man gets a nice case of soot-in-the-face and has to wash up, with Ms. Schmitz’s skillful assistance of course.
Before long, young Mr. Berg is having passionate sex with Hanna in exchange for reading his book assignments to her. Berg is clearly in love with Hanna though she shows little interest in the emotional dimension of their relationship. In due course she walks out of his life without warning and the young boy grows up a heart broken loner. He goes off to law school where he becomes a pupil of Professor Rohl (Bruno Ganz). As Professor Rohl, Ganz gives one of his more lethargic performances here. As an aside, though, I must say that the sight of an actor who gave the definitive portrayal of Hitler (Downfall) now playing a law school professor focused on confronting Nazi atrocities has an ironic grandeur that's for the ages.
As part of a class assignment, Berg and his class watch a war crime trial of concentration camp guards. Among the defendants is (surprise!) Hanna. Berg is devastated though when a crucial piece of evidence of her supposed signature is introduced at trial, implicating her in the order to kill wartime prisoners, Berg sits by quietly watching rather than reveal exculpatory evidence (she can't read or write) which could lighten her sentence.
Years after her conviction and imprisonment Berg, now a judge (played by Ralph Fiennes), begins a read-by-mail correspondence with Hanna, sending her tape recordings of his book readings. She learns to read and write thanks to him but before things get too cheery she reveals her unrepentant attitude as to her part in The Holocaust and hangs herself. There's some frivolous dreck about Fiennes having a daughter with whom he barely speaks following a divorce. His tight lipped character finally opens up to his daughter and reveals his dark past. Insert catharsis here.
Nazis are People Too
While these are all beautiful metaphors for Germany and Germans’ continuing struggle with collective feelings of guilt over their sometimes silent complicity in The Holocaust the actual story does little to effectively convey these ideas. Berg is the good side of Germany - urbane, compassionate, and committed to justice. Hanna is Germany's dark past - cold, detached, ignorant and unrepentant. This is the stuff of great drama. It is also a case study in how a great idea and metaphors alone do not a great drama make. Moments where the film had the potential to get interesting, namely Berg missing out on the romances of youth because of his infatuation with Hanna, are completely squandered and we are instead ushered into humdrum courtroom proceedings and characters pontificating on Germany's complicity in The Holocaust.
One would hope that the characters would perhaps compensate for the subpar plot. No luck there, caballero. There is an absolute lack of character development which leads to little empathy for Hanna even when, towards the end, the film seems to demand it. I asked myself what the film was getting at. Are we supposed to feel empathy for a camp guard who kills women and children and yet the film does little to humanize? If the film is unwilling to commit itself exploring this controversial emotional thesis (can a monster be humanized?), why should I? How can you expect anyone in the audience to empathize with the supposedly complicated emotional waters Berg is navigating when the writer and director have little interest in building fully realized and complex characters to go on the journey with?
For the Home Crowd
This is one of those films that do the opposite of what great stories are supposed to. Rather than gleaning universal themes and insights about the human condition from unique events and people, this film inverts the formula and creates a story which can only gain resonance by depending on the collective guilt of the audience whose history it chronicles (i.e. Germans).
As the film unspooled, with its focus on themes of guilt, complicity, and forgiveness, I had the creeping suspicion that this film would pack quite an emotional wallop had I had more than just an outsider's historical knowledge about post-war Germany. It felt like it would be a great film if only I could access the deep emotions it's trying to convey or I had grown up in post-war Germany. The Godfather, by way of contrast, illustrates how films should work. While The Godfather is about Italians you don’t have to be Italian for its themes to resonate.
Nazis, Soft Porn, and Ralph Fiennes
Another problem with the film is that it seems to rely on the sophisticated notion that simply because it deals with a "European" subject-matter somehow "artistic" full-frontal shots and passionate sex scenes are, in themselves, character development. Perhaps they are, but what we are left with once the copious amount of “character exposition” is complete is a cast of cardboard characters with little to keep our interest. The characters lack the very complexity which leads to compelling drama and forward narrative momentum.
If we wouldn't accept a vacuous low-budget Rambo film as Oscar-worthy material why should we accept one that shields itself by relying on Nazis, soft porn, and Ralph Fiennes? I hate it when these empty films shroud themselves in pretense and "serious" subject matter as a means of deflecting criticism. It’s an iron trap: If you don't see the point of all the nudity and sex then you're just not sophisticated enough to "understand" the film. If you complain that the characters are cardboard cutouts then you rely too much on American notions of plot, character, and conflict.
The Reader seems to have gotten just the right angle and actors to pull off this overrated puff piece. Ralph Fiennes is interesting in just about anything he does and he goes far with what little he's given here. He does an excellent job of conveying the quiet guilt that has gnawed at this man's soul for decades. Kate Winslet beautifully incarnates the sociopathic detachment of Hanna. Nonetheless, the material does little to deepen their characters beyond these basic traits.
Final Thoughts
The Reader ultimately conveys a single-minded determination to undermine its own great potential. Where we could have had a rich and complex exploration of people reconciling and atoning for a horrific past we instead get shorthand story telling and sketches of characters. Great actors and serious subject matter are supposed to put the emotional heft and meat onto this emaciated narrative and somehow we are supposed to really feel the story. Rarely does this kind of gamble work. With The Reader it failed miserably.
Note to Reader: Walk before you run. Learn to Write before you Read.
Post Script
Oh, and one last thing. I’m a sucker for the beautiful manipulations of advertising. I tip my hat when a good ad can make an awful movie look exciting, interesting, etc. I admire how an advertising department works with what’s there on film, rearranges it to highlight the good stuff, and gets you to shell out those hard-earned ten dollars for a ticket. The good ads may misrepresent but they don’t lie. But The Reader hit a new low! Oh, how you cheated me!
The movie poster features a prominent photograph of a youthful Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes together in the same frame, same shot, same photograph, and a blurb “How far would you go to protect a secret?” Good stuff! All this only to watch the movie and realize that I had been lied to by the photo on the poster. The youthful Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes never share a frame of film together. We only see them together at the very end of the film, for 15 minutes! That’s it! Bad form, people! Bad form!
Posts
