The Reader - A voce alta

Very well acted and presented and a faithful representation of the main points of the novel on which it is based. This film encourages us to look closely at very difficult issues surrounding the atrocities of World War II. I am at a loss to understand why so many critics have been so damning of it. Perhaps it is too subtle for them to understand. It seeks to outlaw the false and intellectually lazy theory to explain the holocaust, namely that the horrors were committed by monsters. In its place we are offered contextualization, not as excuse but as explanation of how quite ordinary people were able to do extraordinarily dreadful things. We avoid these uncomfortable facts at our peril.

Directed by Stephen Daldry and written by David Hare, "The Reader" is a thought-provoking and surprising drama that takes the viewer in several different directions. Though some reviewers on this site are critical of Daldry and the film, in lesser hands, "The Reader" would be a total, erratic mess.

The story is told in flashback as the adult Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) remembers his youth. As a 15-year-old boy, the young Michael (David Kross) has his first forays into sex with an older woman, Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) in 1958 Berlin. She helps him when he winds up on her doorstep, ill with scarlet fever; he returns to thank her when he's well. The two enter into a sexual relationship. As part of their time together, Hanna has Michael read to her. One day, Hanna simply disappears. The next time Michael sees her is in 1966, when he is a law student in Heidelberg and his class travels to watch a trial. It is then he realizes not one secret that Hanna carried with her, but two.

"The Reader" is, above all, a very human story of real, conflicted human beings, and the brilliant performances reflect this. David Kross is exceptional as the young Michael, in the throes of first, blinding passion, who, in the face of the truth about the woman he loved, endeavors to understand her nonetheless. Kate Winslet is magnificent, and that's the only word for her. Hardened by life and her unsentimental and uncompromising view of the world, she is cut off from people due to a secret she considers shameful. With Michael she allows herself some softness, and gives in to not only passion but emotion, sobbing when Michael reads a sad story to her. Winslet shows us all of this, her need to connect with someone, and her strict view of life. Ralph Fiennes turns in another excellent performance; Michael's world and his own isolation were shaped by Hanna. As an adult, he still grapples with a decision he made and his own guilt; he still tries to understand not only her but how he could love her, and in the midst of all of these complex emotions, he believes he owes her something. He ends up giving her the greatest gift he could - her dignity.

As with "Dead Man Walking," there is more to a person than his or her actions, reprehensible though they may be. We are not, after all, what we do but who we are. While some crimes are unforgivable, there is, shockingly, at times a connection with the perpetrator that allows us to see the person and extend a consideration that person never gave another. Thus murderers have loving parents and family, and someone who showed inhumanity to others has a little humanity shown them.

A very remarkable story.

Post-WWII Germany: Nearly a decade after his affair with an older woman came to a mysterious end, law student Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) re-encounters his former lover (Kate Winslet) as she defends herself in a war-crime trial.

The film raises the question of whether we should judge someone by the law or rather "the laws of the time". And there is a big difference. Of course we know that killing is morally wrong, and those who sent people to death in World War II were morally in the wrong, even if they were only following orders.

But were they legally wrong? One could argue not. That is a difficult topic. Like the women of this film, those at the Nuremberg Trial were tried and convicted under laws invented after the war. Laws written by the winners. This makes one wonder: is it right to put someone on trial for something morally wrong, even if it was not legally wrong? And who should decide the laws? Had the Axis won, they could have just as easily declared it illegal to drop atomic bombs on innocent villages and then try, convict and execute Harry Truman.

Right and wrong is no easy topic.

Before I start reviewing, let me say something personal: As a German, one can hardly watch movies about the Holocaust, WWII or any related topic unbiased. As I have discovered myself, no German family is without a history related to the Third Reich, almost none are without grave guilt, or at least the fear thereof, and most who say otherwise either lie knowingly, or simply try to evade further inquiry.

Reading some of the other reviews, I realized that for me, the movie conveyed something slightly, but decisively different: It is not so much about understanding HOW people could ever do the things they did, but rather how it is possible, that people we love, and people that have been loved by people we love could be so guilty and so loving, so despicable and lovable at the same time. It is about how we expect the guilt to show up somehow, how we expect to know the killer, the monster, at first sight and say: how could anyone not have seen it? Yet we have to admit sooner or later, that we were wrong, or were we? The question really is: How could I have ever loved someone who did things as horrible and disgusting as Hannah did? And just as much: If I am unmerciful now, having learned of their guilt, is it because they did what they did, or because they disappointed my own belief in their innocence?

At one point, Hanna Schmitz asks the judge: "What would you have done?", and I think that therein lies an even more disturbing and unsettling question: What would I have done? What would you have done? How can anyone know for sure what WE would done? It is too easy to think of oneself as morally sound, with a firm belief in what is right and wrong. It's what Germans call the "mercy of late birth" - the luxury of not having been in the position to make that choice.

So, what made this movie worth giving the full 10 points out of 10? It is well-crafted, well-played, believable, at times even beautiful. It captures both the fascination Michael feels with Hannah, and his disbelief, even disgust while exploring the ugly truth about her past. It conveys the struggle between our compassion and the reluctance to show mercy against the ones who did not. It leaves the viewer with the same, disturbing questions that have not been answered sufficiently in the past 60 years (nor will they ever be). It does not provide simple answers, but rather raises more questions, left to be unanswered. As Lena Olin's Character says: "If you want Catharsis, go to the theater!"

Other than providing beautiful, well-toned cinematography, a well-written script, love of detail and convincing performances even by the supporting cast - what more can you expect from a truly great movie?

The film is a series of profound moral dilemmas—while contrived by the author, they are fair questions—that resonate deeply in the 21st Century: The role of guilt in victims, perpetrators, individuals and collectively, as well as justice, forgiveness, redemption, shame and, of course, literacy and its role in Western thought.

All this is a pretty heady mix for a film, but Stephen Daldry (as with "The Hours" ) makes literary conceit play very naturally here. David Hare's screenplay and the remarkable cinematography of the always remarkable Roger Deakins together with a sensitive score by Nico Muhly, this is indeed rarefied film-making.

But the actors are what drag the audience into this story. David Kross is amazing as the young Michael who has to play a range of virginal innocent to wizened and bitter. It's the key role in the film, and we're all lucky he was found to play this role. And the ever confounding Kate Winslet. What an amazing career for this young actress! Running through a list of her credits, she has some of the best performances of the last decade: "Holy Smoke," "Eternal Sunshine…," "Iris," "Finding Neverland," "Little Children." But here she does something very different. Playing what amounts to a monster, we see that they too are human. Not many actresses could bring this off, but it may be her greatest accomplishment to date.

Ralph Fiennes brings a continuity to the work David Kross begins, and there's a brief appearance by Lena Olin who commands the dignity the role deserves.

I'm puzzled at the lukewarm reception to this film. I almost missed seeing it. And it turned out to be one of my favorite and the most heart-rending films of the year. All involved should be very proud.