The Reader

I find the best way to go into a film is to know as little about it as possible. I didn't know a thing about 'The Reader' before buying it on Amazon other than it starred Kate Winslet (who won an oscar) and Ralph Fiennes and Winslet plays yet another character who spends a good portion of a film wearing absolutely nothing and having sex. Sounded like a winning purchase ('Little Children' was a great movie after all). Turns out 'The Reader' is one of the best films I've seen in the last few years. It has a richly layered plot of human drama that hits on the generational attitudes of post-WWII Germany, the Holocaust, and brings up questions of guilt and blame. 'The Reader' follows the character Michael Berg, a lawyer in Berlin who's distant with other people, particularly the women in his life. We learn through extended flash-backs that Michael at age 15 secretly carried on an affair with an older woman named Hanna. Along with sexual confrontations Michael and Hanna connect through stories as Hanna asks Michael to read books to her before (and sometimes during and after) their love-making. After the affair ends we follow Michael through college to present day (or 1995 in the movie's terms) and we see how his relationship with Hanna has effected the rest of his life, especially after witnessing a high-profile trial involving the Holocaust with Hanna as a defendant! What makes 'The Reader' work so well for me is that it doesn't provide any easy answers or solutions for it's characters. Michael is constantly confused and trying to understand, not just the actions of other characters in the film but his own emotions as well. Every decision he makes has a lasting impact on his life and this is perfectly realised in the story. As much as I love this film I do have two major complaints. No doubt anyone who's read Bernhard Schlink's book (also titled 'The Reader' on which this movie is based) knows a certain twist involving Hanna's character in the middle of the film. While this reveal is made obvious early on it's still treated as a major plot-twist through Michael's eyes and the montage really wasn't necessary. The other element that didn't strike true is the handling of the impact of the Holocaust. Despite being a major theme, the Holocaust is very much under-played throughout the movie and for the most part this is successful (and I loved how the uncomfortable confrontation between Ralph Fiennes and Lina Olin played out in the end). It was however very hard to get a grasp on the true horror of Hanna's actions, despite some emotional character reactions. Even Michael's walk through an abandond concentration camp didn't give weight to the heavy emotions the character must've been feeling. The audience is still treated as an outsider. Lots of praise for 'The Reader' comes from the performances of it's main three actors. Kate Winslet has always been a high-profile actress and in my opinion has never been better portraying Hanna from her mid-thirties to elderly age towards the end of the story. Ralph Fiennes is equally good playing a man who's been haunted his entire life by his past and the decisions he's made. Screen legend Bruno Ganz is given a great role as Michael's Law-teacher and he's excellent! Perhaps the best performance of the film, though is by unknown actor David Kross who plays Michael from age 15 to 18 (where most of the film takes place). Watching him change from naive boy to young adult coming to terms with some harsh realizations really commands your attention. Despite some complaints, 'The Reader' gripped me and held my interest from beginning to end. I was absolutely mesmerized by this film and I very much recommend it to anyone who likes good human-drama as well as movies about Germany's attitudes towards the Holocaust. (For like-movies check out: Europa Europa, The Tin Drum, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and The Pianist.)

The Reader is a provocative and heartbreaking film which tells the tale of a May-September affair between Hanna (Kate Winslet) and 15 year-old Michael (David Kross) in the decade after WWII. Beyond that, however, I believe the film is an allegory of the relationship between those Germans who were responsible for the Holocaust and those loved ones who came after them, and were forced to confront the horrible truths at a later time. It deals with the guilt, the anger, and the conflicting emotions therein. The story is heartbreaking because it reminds us that we are all struggling with guilt, emotions, and the legacy we have created for ourselves by our actions or inactions. It neither asks the viewer to forgive nor condemn. It merely shows us how similar we are to these people by putting their humanity in our faces. The movie is provocative for both the many nude/sex scenes between Michael and Hanna, and because it purposefully makes it a bit harder to blame or label, not only those responsible for the Holocaust, but all of the people in our history who have a connection between an evil deed and tacit complicity, regardless of the severity. There is a powerful moment during the trial when a confused Hanna is questioned about her responsibilities as a guard and she innocently asks one of the judges, "What would you do?" None of the judges has an answer. Throughout all of history's atrocities, there are always those who were simply "doing their job." It's so easy to imagine being the heroic person who would stand up a make a difference, but the fact is, few possess that much courage and conviction. Many recoil at the sexual perversity, but I think the intention was to make the audience uncomfortable. Not only did Hanna's seduction help create a person who would end up sharing her emotional void, but so too did the generation responsible for the Nazi atrocities force their shame onto the generation that followed them. The beauty of The Reader for me was in how these characters can speak for generations; the passion, the heartbreak, the guilt, the shame, the anger, and the eventual cold-blooded detachment. The acting is stellar throughout, with special props going to Kate Winslet and David Kross for their fearless portrayals and for breathing such believability into their characters. To engender empathy for people who run the gamut from despicable to emotionally empty is a nod to their acting skill. To compel me to watch the drama of such unsavory individuals is a testament to the power of this movie. The Reader might disturb you, anger you, disgust you, or even confuse you. Certainly one of the principal responsibilities for art is to provoke such reactions. P.S. I don't usually include info about the dvd extras, but since I watched them this afternoon, I thought I'd add a sentence or five. There are about a handful or so, focusing on the set design with a German woman who had left her native country during the post WWII period to get away from the drama, a lengthy bit with Kate Winslet getting into her older make-up, an interview with Kross and the director, and a bit with the music director. There are also quite a few deleted scenes that must've made it pretty far as they seem like a finished product, if you know what I mean. They are illuminating and at least one in particular should've been included as it not only bridges two scenes that have little continuity, but also features a very poignant conversation between Michael and an older truck driver. It's kind of chilling and should have been in the movie.

The film: "The Reader" deserved its Oscar for best actress, but it also deserved the Oscar for best film (it lost to the inferior "Slumdog Millionaire.") It tells the tale of a young man growing up in post-war Germany who has an affair with a mysterious older woman. Without spoiling too much, the story ends up touching on the holocaust, how much we can blame participants, and whether or not love transcends these historical pains. Normally, I dislike holocaust films. I find that Hollywood too often beats us over the head with the "it's BAD" message (This Just In! Hollywood Geniuses Discover Holocaust Was Bad!) as opposed to mining the much more interesting tales of personal struggle, loss, redemption, and ignorance. "The Reader" offers an intelligent, probing, and insightful look at the human costs on those who were not direct victims, and on the society of post-war Germany at large. It also tells a heck of a love story, to boot. I felt so respected by the makers of this film. There is no heavy-handed moralizing, in fact, the message of the film seems to be that, while of course there are great moral wrongs that have been perpetrated, there are lesser consequences which do not make it into history books, but do have an impact on real people and deal them real pains that ought to be respected. As mentioned in other reviews, this is not a movie for the kids, at least not kids who still titter when they see nudity on screen. The first half of the film is consumed by a lusty affair between a 32 year old and a 15 year old. It's not for immature audiences. The Blu-Ray: On the opening scene, I thought this film must be shot on digital. The source was just too clean, with little to no film grain in evidence. Upon further research, however, I have discovered that it was indeed shot on Kodak Vision2 and Vision3 film - which Kodak advertises as producing less grain in low light and in general. Given this, and the fact that detail is generally so strong in this image, I can only assume that this Blu-Ray has been mastered without excessive Digital Noise Reduction. It is a lovely 1.85:1 image which suits nice widescreen displays beautifully. Black levels are strong, loads of detail is evident in shadows, and colors are extremely naturalistic. There are many moments that offer the sort of "3-D" realism that the best HD can give. The quality of the image adds immediacy and impact to the already involving film. Audio is very dialogue driven. This is not a BD that will rock your neighbors. Extras are very strong. 42 minutes (!) of deleted scenes are presented in 480p widescreen. I watched them all, and I would say only one cut was truly unfortunate - a little bit of backstory for Michael's law professor that would have added depth to the story. Mini-documentaries are also available, touching on the writing and casting process, as well as Kate Winslet's aging with make-up. Overall, it's a very strong slate of extras. ********* Any fan of serious dramas and romances would do quite well to pick this up. It's a truly great movie that is very affecting and also thought provoking. It's a monument to respecting the viewer, allowing them to digest complex morality without beating them over the head with a "message." I would compare it to films like "The English Patient" or "I've Loved You So Long" (another 2008 Oscar Nominee). It is also presented in an exceedingly beautiful HD transfer and a strong package of extras. Certainly, if you're doing a survey of 2008 Oscar nominees, you should pick this up over the trite, pat Hollywood fare of "Slumdog." It's also better than the very good, but somewhat flabby "Benjamin Button," and the excellent, but not as brainy "Milk." I can't recommend it enough.

If I didn't like this movie, I would have titled my review "Summer of My Nazi War Criminal Lover" but I did like it...largely because of Kate Winslet. She really can disappear into a character. In this movie, you just see Hanna Schmitz and not the incredibly talented actress playing her. ***spoilers*** The first aspect about the movie is the love story. It's done with great sensitivity and tenderness (and eroticism). I did not find it distasteful (although I'm a guy and the idea of being welcomed into a attractive older woman's bed at the age of 15 would have been the stuff of my dreams...at least when I was at that age...and besides David Cross looked older than 15). Also, the book points out that Hanna misjudged Michael's age (thinking him 17 and the age of consent laws in Germany don't outright ban contact between a 35 year old woman and 15 year old male anyway). I remember someone I knew who was in his late teens who was involved with a much older woman and while I thought that rather odd, it didn't come across as monstrous (although I admit I find the notion of any man in his mid-30s seducing a 15 year old girl appalling). The second aspect of the story is the question of Hanna's guilt for what she did in World War II. She was a guard at Auschwitz. On a weekly basis, she picked ten inmates there to be sent to the gas chamber in response to a standing requirement that she do so (some of them were women she gave preferential treatment to for a time while she had them read to her). She also was partially responsible for deaths of hundreds of women and children who died when the church that the SS women locked them in was hit by Allied bombers. These facts are indisputable, so she's evil and beyond redemption, right? But what would someone plunked from our safe secure perch in the early 21st century into Nazi Germany do in someone like Hanna's shoes? It's easy to say "I would never have joined the SS, and if I had, I wouldn't have served as a guard at Auschwitz. And I would have released those women and children in the church." But I wonder. We shouldn't be that surprised that a relatively unsophisticated, illiterate person living in a society like Nazi Germany where life was so cheap and obedience so prized behaved the way Hanna did (and besides joining the SS in late 1943 when a lot of Germans could clearly see the handwriting on the wall was not a shrewd or opportunistic move or the mark of an ardent Nazi!). There's a world of difference between someone like her (who was a child when the Third Reich took power) and someone like Rudolph Hoess, the first commandant of Auschwitz, who was an ardent Nazi and with Hitler almost from the very beginning. It's entirely plausible that someone like Hanna was --in a normal society where there is rule of law-- a "good" person, and she apparently was after the war. It's hardly wrong for the film to depict her as someone capable of love and tenderness. Many Nazis were thugs or sadists but Hanna was not (in fact the movie didn't even indicate she was a member of the Nazi Party or held anti-semitic views). She was just a little cog in an evil machine. Demanding that anyone who was part of that inhuman machine be depicted as someone with horns is simplistic. The character of Michael Berg is somewhat inexplicable, and this is why I am giving the film only four stars. He falls head over heels in love with Hanna as a youth. He's devastated by her departure from his life. He's heartbroken when he sees her in the dock on trial for war crimes. But he doesn't act to help her by revealing the fact she's illiterate and couldn't have written the report about the fire that damns her to a life sentence. Was he sparing her feelings, punishing her, or both? (if I had been in his shoes I would have revealed her secret to the court...She might have hated me for it, but she probably would have gotten to learn to read and write much earlier than she did and would have gotten out of jail much sooner). Frankly, I found Michael remaining silent bewildering (particularly when we see him crying when she gets a life sentence)...just like I found him recording all those books for her but never writing and actually communicating with her impossible to understand. There are a few more points to ponder here. First, it is striking how little we the readers wind up knowing about Hanna. Even at the end of the movie, she's still a cipher to both us and Michael. Even in what amounted to her last will and testament where one might have expected her to pour out her feelings to Michael and talk about what she did in the war, she doesn't (just saying "Tell Michael Berg I said hello.") I for one found myself wanting to know more about her and why she did what she did and why she --apparently impulsively-- became involved with Michael. Second, it was a mistake to have Winslet play Hanna as a woman in her mid-60s. No matter how good the make-up and how good an actress Winslet is, I didn't buy her as a prematurely aged woman. That's one reason why having her in prison less time would have worked better...because she was plausible as someone in her late 40s to early 50s but not much beyond that. Third, the movie and book seem to construe the incident where Hanna didn't let the prisoners out of the burning church as her greatest sin. But what would someone nowadays have been charged with in similar circumstances (let's say, a sheriff fails to release prisoners from a burning jail)? He'd be guilty of a crime of omission. He'd probably be found guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide and not willful murder unless it could be proved that he set fire to the jail or announced that he was going to let those prisoners burn to death. A lot of people in such a situation would have gone into moral vapor lock and found it easier --at least at that moment-- to do nothing. And remember, she was just one of six guards. The other five could have acted to save those people as well but didn't. The book also makes it clear that there were soldiers present who had escorted the guards with their charges. They did nothing either. Moreover, there were villagers who did nothing as well. The guilt and responsibility for the incident was collective and involved many people. Singling out Hanna for exceptional punishment while others walked free or got token sentences wasn't fair and not in the interest of justice...and it wouldn't have brought anyone back from the dead. Yet another point to ponder: the story had Hanna serving about 18 or 19 years in prison. Albert Speer, the economic czar of the Third Reich, served twenty years of his life sentence before being released. The duration of those sentences would make one think that Speer and the fictional Hanna's crimes were roughly equivalent in magnitude...but as anyone knows, Speer's culpability and guilt was infinitely greater. Finally, I said to myself, "You don't like the ending of the book and movie. What sort of ending would have been satisfactory to you and possibly other people as well?" This is what I came up with ***the following is an alternative ending that substantially changes events as depicted in the book and movie and those who are happy with the way it stands probably should not read it*** A Better Ending Part I would not change. In Part II, Michael would visit Hanna in jail and express disbelief, anger, and dismay over both her past and her leaving him. Michael would still go through all the angst that he did in this point of the narrative, but when he realized Hanna was illiterate and it would be wrong for her to be assigned the lion's share of blame for the deaths at the church, he would go to the judge --despite her pleading with him not to-- and tell him that Hanna could not read or write and could not have written the report about the incident. As a result, Hanna would draw a ten year sentence along with the other women guards (instead of her getting a life sentence while the others got token ones). Now, Hanna's first reaction to Michael's "betrayal" of her secret would be shame and anger at him. We'd see her refusing to let him visit her. Michael would try to forget about her, getting married and even more quickly divorced. Michael would then start reading and recording books for Hanna and eventually she'd learn to read and write and when she started sending him letters...after some hesitation, he would start writing back to her (this correspondence would allow us to learn more about her character). One thing we would learn was that she became involved with Michael because he bore a strong resemblance to a young German soldier she grew up with and loved and who died in the war....We'd also see her develop insight and regret over what she did and failed to do in the war. Time would march on, and after the sixth year or so of her sentence, Michael would begin visiting her and around the eighth or ninth year of her sentence, Hanna would receive clemency and be released from prison. Michael would pick her up at the prison and when they were in the car together, she'd ask --much like he asked her long before-- "do you forgive me? and he'd nod imperceptibly and then "do you love me?" and he'd again nod. Later, we'd see them in bed together at his home and in another turn, Michael would have her read to him. I figure that we'd then flash forward until around 2004 or 2005 (and learn that Hanna had died of natural causes a year or so before) with Michael visiting the survivor of the fire and having much the same conversation with that woman that he did in the book and the movie, and we'd then see Michael visiting Hanna's grave and once again read to her. For me that would make a better ending. Hanna would still wind up being held to account but she and Michael would be together at the end...for others perhaps not, but that's one of the best things about fiction. It isn't real so there's no sin in saying, "No, it happened this way."

It's been awhile since I've been totally overwhelmed by a movie. Having seen THE READER (several times, along with all the extras in this DVD), I remain officially dumbstruck. A flood of emotions sweep over me when I think about, or discuss, this moving portrayal of guilt, shame, turmoil, anguish, remorse, tormented love--and reclamation--set in post-WW II Germany and based on Bernhard Schlink's internationally acclaimed novel . The story reflects Germany's relentless guilt, pain, and denial, as the succeeding generations come to grips with the horrors of its Nazi past. Or, better yet, doesn't come to grips. And how is this struggle allegorically portrayed? An affair, a summer fling in 1958, between 36-year-old Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) and 15-year-old Michael Berg (David Kross as the youth, Ralph Fiennes as the man). The affair is doomed from the start, yet for one fleeting summer Hanna and Michael are the fulcrums of one another's lives--especially when Michael, either before or after their lovemaking, reads to Hanna. And he reads everything: literature, plays, poetry; and Hanna is so very moved. Why? The affair ends abruptly, and Michael moves on with his life. As a law student he signs up for a seminar studying a war trial now taking place--and Hanna is one of the defendants. Beforehand, Michael was firmly in agreement with his law school peers in their condemnation of the generation that was either duplicitous, or looked the other way, as Nazi atrocities were committed. Now, he's torn, because before his eyes is the woman he once loved--a proud, stubborn woman willing to pay any price to hide her shame--and Michael, at the cost of haunting regret, does not reveal information that would aid Hanna. Subsequently, Michael is distant, aloof, tentative, unemotional, with all his relationships--even his relationship with his daughter. As Hanna ages in prison, Michael reaches out to her in the only distant way he knows how: He reads books on a cassette recorder and ships the tapes to her. The story moves on to its tragic conclusion--yet we are given a glimpse that maybe, perhaps, Michael is moving towards his own reclamation. Kudos to director Stephen Daldry for bringing such a complex, tragic, and cerebral story to the screen. The cast is superb, especially Kate Winslet; this, by far, is her best role. Extra features include interviews with the cast and crew, along with a very humorous vignette depicting Winslet's ordeal each day sitting in a makeup chair being aged more than 30 years (Winslet's wry humor definitely shows this lady has her feet firmly on the ground). THE READER will have you talking and thinking about its haunting story a long time; a must-have for all collectors of quality cinema. --D. Mikels, Author, The Reckoning

Ralph Fiennes plays Michael Berg, a lawyer in Germany in 1995, when this film is originally set. The rest of the film is primarily told in flashbacks, as Michael reflects on his involvement with an woman named Hannah (played by Kate Winslet), which began when he was just 15 years old. Michael had come down with a sever illness on day, while out on the street, and collapsed. Hannah, who is already an adult, happened to come across him, and helped him get home. When Michael got better, he tracked down Hannah so he could give her some flowers, as a way of thanking him, and Michael is immediately attracted to her. The 2nd time they met, Hannah takes notice of Michael's attraction, and rather suddenly seduces him. Over the next several weeks, the two lovers meet in secret, @ Hannah's apartment, after she's gotten home from work and he's got out of school, to have sex. Hannah soon makes what seems like an odd request to Michael, she want him to read to her some of the books that he's studying in school. She says she enjoys hearing his voice, and the way he reads. And so that is how their affair progresses, they'd have sex, and then lie in bed (or in the bathtub) while Michael reads aloud to Hannah. What I find most interesting about how this relationship is portrayed, is that there's almost an abusive element to it, on the part of Hannah. Michael (brilliantly portrayed as a teenager by David Cross), is a naïve wide-eyed innocent, who clearly develops deep feelings for Hannah. While Hannah is show @ times to be dismissive of Michael, and be demanding of him, and mocks his youth. That, missed with the tenderness of the love scenes, creates a very strange dynamic between these two. Then Hannah abruptly moves away, after receiving a job promotion, without even telling Michael or saying goodbye. Michael is, of course, devastated. Then the film switches to 6 years later, where Michael is in law school. His professor takes him and some of his fellow students to observe a trial where three women are charged with war crimes, for being Nazi prison guards @ a women's concentration camp, where they were responsible for allowing some of the prisons to die in a fire. Michael is shocked to discover that Hannah was one of the guards, although he attempts to hide the fact that he knows her from his professor and fellow students, and the other two women put the blame for the fire entirely on her. While studying the evidence and facts of the trial, Michael discovers Hannah's secret, which is that she is illiterate. That's why she had Michael read books to her, because she couldn't read them herself. This info could actually help her during the trial, but she refuses to admit it, because she's too embarrassed, and is therefor sentenced to life in prison. Over the years, Michael sends tape records that he makes of himself reading various books to Hannah in prison, but he never goes to visit her in person. Eventually, Hannah uses Michael's tapes to teach herself how to read. And then 22 years later she is due to be paroled. Michael finally goes to see her in prison, but their meeting is strained, as Michael can't quite reconcile the horrible actions she committed during the war. He does end up agreeing to help her find a job and a place to stay when she gets out of jail, but then when he goes to pick her up on the day of her released, he discovered that she committed suicide the day before. We then switch back to the modern day (1995) where Michael is telling this story to his young daughter. I enjoyed this film both the complexity of the relationship between Hannah and Michael, as well as for scenes between Michael and the other law students during the trial. It's made clear that these kids are the first generation in Germany to come after WWII, and have grown up in the shadow of the atrocities that were committed by the generation that preceded them, and have struggled to come to terms with that. I also must say that while Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes were rightly praised by the critics for their performances, I feel that David Cross has been greatly overlooked. His portrayal as young Michael, going from age 15-22 is spot-on, and I think he's the real star of the film. And least I forget another great feature of this movie, and the reason why I own it on DVD: Kate Winslet gets naked. Completely naked. A LOT.

Here we have an extraordinary film dealing with profound themes of innocence and guilt, law and morality; set against the "grip and slog" (D.H. Lawrence) of everyday life. Much of life is perfunctory, humdrum and carnal. To speak of the brief nudity (as have some reviewers) as a sensationalist distraction from the profound themes within which it is set, is to deny the human condition. More to the point, when does the "humdrum" itself become immoral. We know that "ignorance of the law" is never a defense, but what about the banal acts of repetition that are moved from one context to another; becoming evil only in a later context? Only one certainty emerges from this movie; Kate Winslet is the greatest living film actor. Those who thought her nudity a distraction have been seeing too many arty David Niven movies from the forties. This is a contemporary movie with contemporary esthetic. Hanna Schmitz (Winslet's character) was a lonely, ignorant, amoral woman; illiterate, bereft of any history (nothing whatever is portrayed about her past), she is basically just a cipher. David Kross as her teen-age lover deserves honorable mention. His character as an adult was played by the redoubtable Ralph Fiennes. Hanna lost her job because she was too reliable. Her superiors were so impressed with her dependability she was promoted from transit ticket-taking to a job requiring reading and writing. Unable to perform these simple tasks she was forced to find work of which she was capable, as a guard in the Jewish concentration camps. She was reliable as a guard but reliability proved her undoing when the concentration camps became death camps. Her "job" was to keep the prisoners locked in, and she steadfastly performed her duty even as the inmates were incinerated by an accidental fire. Later, at the War Crimes trial she could not exculpate herself without admitting that she was illiterate. Lena Olin, in double cameo roles as mother at the trial and then daughter near the end of the movie is brilliant. As the grim, stoic Jewish woman at the end of the movie she coldly states "nothing came out of the camps but death." She has no time for the sentimentality of Hanna's one time lover (Ralph Fiennes, portraying what he does best, self-pity). The movie reminds us again what we have learned from the Jews; the death of the body is death. No sentiment, no fantasy of salvation or forgiveness can change that fact; there is nothing more that we nor anyone else can do. There is no redemption for Hanna or her sentimental lover. This movie is a profound tragedy. Yet, given the unforgiveable horrors of the Death Camps, there can be no sense of catharsis.

I did not particularly like the story that this film tells but the acting is great. Kate Winslet's character befriends a teenage boy when he becomes ill with scarlet fever. The boy falls in love with her and later when he is in college, he sits in on her trial and she is sentenced to ?????? I won't say much more because it will ruin the movie for others. It is a good movie, good acting, and a good production, but it just wasn't my type of movie. It is a coming of age movie which I usually love but this was too much drama for me. I like the sweet and innocent coming of age stories. I am a sucker for romance but I just felt like she was using this teenage boy who really had fallen in love with her. For the men who say that coming of age stories are chick flicks, this is not one of them. So my advice for all the men is to go see this movie and Kate Winslet will take her clothes off just for you.

Produit reçu en parfait état.

Really well played ..a movie that makes you think!!!

En voie tres bien, beaux film

Todo perfecto

Sweet but boring