Director: Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot, The Hours)
Novel: Bernhard Schlink
Screenplay: David Hare
Producers: Donna Gigliotti, Anthony Minghella, Redmond Morris, Sydney Pollack
Starring: Kate Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes, Bruno Ganz,
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 123 min
In an episode of HBO’s “Extras” (maybe the best episode), Kate Winslet said that you either have to play a retard or be in a holocaust movie to be guaranteed an Oscar win. She may have proven that theory to be true with The Reader; at least partially true. She’s been nominated five times and has lost every single time. This year, although she’s got some amazingly stiff competition with the likes of Anne Hathaway, Angelina Jolie and Oscar magnet Meryl Streep, it’s very possible that Winslet will finally take home that coveted prize this year for an outstanding performance… in a holocaust (sort of) film.
In early 1940′s Berlin, a young, teenage man begins an affair with a slightly older woman named Hannah. Every day after school he races to her small apartment for sexual relations and education. While there, she pleads with him to read aloud to her, various classic novels. This becomes a ritual: reading then sex; then maybe some more reading, followed by more sex. For the summer this continues every day until one day when the woman gets promoted from her job and disappears from his life in an instant. Years later while in law school, the young man travels with his class to witness the Nazi war crime trials. He is shocked to discover that his lover of years ago is actually one of the defendants in the trial; accused of murdering hundreds of Jews. Little does the court know, but the young man actually holds information that could change the course of the trial and impact both of their lives forever.
The plot is intriguing, the acting is superb and the cinematography (Roger Deakins) is fantastic. But the movie takes FOREVER to get anywhere. At over two hours, which does get compelling for the final hour, the movie desperately needs some trimming with the exposition and early character development. The characters do what they have to do and the story says what it has to say, but it seems to do it over and over and over again needlessly. I know I wasn’t alone on the antsy committee in this particular theater. I didn’t see anyone leave, but I fully expected to and the film nearly lost even me.
Thankfully, I sort of knew what was in store in terms of plot and that eventually we’d get there. Once the trial begins and the characters begin to grow, the story does sort of take off and get interesting; especially Hannah’s back story and what we learn of her past. There is almost a moral quandary, but the facts of the case are too obvious and hard hitting and as an audience member it’s contemplatively easy to take the right side.
Interestingly enough, the story line of the 1940′s is juxtaposed with a parallel story as we see the young man now well into his fifties living comfortably as a lawyer (played by Ralph Fiennes). This is where the story finally develops into something interesting and the characters seem to have real feeling and depth. Unfortunately it takes 3/4 of the film to get there and while it is compelling, by that time, most of the aura or the mood is lost.
Props must go out to all of the actors. Obviously Winslet is on her usual A-game and destroys all competition, but young David Kross seems right at home in a high profile role for such a young kid and relative new comer. Bruno Ganz is difficult to put a finger on. His performance isn’t particularly outstanding, but something about his presence and demeanor completely commands the screen when he is there. I love to see him in just about anything and here is no different. From the school mates to the judges, every actor fulfills their roles to perfection and this is easily the greatest strength of the film.
Sadly, I can’t say exactly what the movie is trying to tell me. It’s not exactly about love or family. The actual holocaust really isn’t spoken of all that much (aside from the short lived trial). As I mentioned, there is no moral quandary as it’s pretty obvious what crimes were committed and what the consequences should be. It isn’t a coming of age story and there’s nothing particularly shocking or emotionally gut busting. By the end there are some touching moments and a semi-interesting resolution, but really this movie goes from flat line, then down to boring as hell and then back to flatline. Really the only saving grace is the stellar performances and half decent conclusion. Despite popular opinion, I would bet that while the film will garner some acting and technical nods, a best feature film nomination is unlikely.
This movie looks boring as shit, and I’m not a fan at all of Kate Winslet.
However Andrew, I’m curious wether you liked The Hours? I thought it was amazing, and if you thought of it the same as you did The Reader, maybe The Reader is something I should check out.
I also agree the movie looks boring, but just ‘looks’ – Everything else I know leads me to believe that it would be easy to watch, just maybe not what I want to see.
Maybe you’re not a fan, but I don’t know any justifiable reason to actively dislike Kate Winslet. I’d say she’s one of if not the best actress of her generation.
I find her much too lively and annoyingly modern hipsterlike. In Eternal Sunshine she made me want to kill her. Her Extras part did nothing for me, I didn’t find her funny at all (to be fair though, I don’t really find much of season 1 of Extras that funny, definitely a quantom leap in quality in season 2). Titanic boring. That’s all I’ve seen her in.
The major thing about (and most actresses in the world) is that she lacks authority. She’s unable to be scary, even as a nazi in the trailer for this. And she doesn’t do the motherly love as good as somebody like Jennifer Connelly, who while also lacking authority, is heartfelt on screen.
A lot of people find her annoying in Eternal Sunshine, but that role also completely nullifies your followup argument. She’s the dominant frightening one in the relationship. She’s not a hipster, she’s just fucked in the head.
“And she doesn’t do the motherly love as good as somebody like Jennifer Connelly” is completely the fuck out of left field, as she’s not a mother in any of the things you have seen her in.
This is pretty out there stuff even for you, and your argument is pretty much null and void until you’ve seen Little Children.
So in otherwords Henrik, if you think modern actresses lack authority and are unable to be scary, well, maybe that says more about your opinion of women
In addition, from what I understand about the Reader, there’s no benefit to her being an entirely scary character. For someone who complains about complexity you should be able to understand why, but then again, you’re also judging the scariness of her performance through a frigging trailer.
“And she doesn’t do the motherly love as good as somebody like Jennifer Connelly, who while also lacking authority, is heartfelt on screen”
Just for comparisons sake, your sweeping judgment of Winslet is like dissing Connelly after only seeing her in Career Opportunities and Dark Water. And if you didn’t find Winslet funny in extras, well you’d be hard pressed to show me a good Connelly comedic performance anyways.
Connelly is in Little Children too, in a smaller role, so now you have an excuse to see it.
During this film I was curious as to why his family never noticed that their school age son was involved with a much older woman? You never saw his family. Michael was often with Hannah after school and into the night. Kinda drove me nuts.
The Reader is very forgettable, but I enjoyed it while it lasted. I could tell that this was the same director as The Hours, it just has that same literary quality, you can almost feel pages being turned. Kinda funny that in a film that touches upon the holocaust you have Bruno Ganz (Adolf Hitler) and Ralph Fiennes (Amon Goeth) populating it.
I would love to see Little Children just haven’t gotten around to it. Jennifer Connelly is hardly my favourite actress or anything, I just think she does a good job in spite of not having a particularly interesting charismatic presence. I doubt she has any good comedic performances. As for being a mother though, she is a mother in both A Beautiful Mind which isn’t really that interesting, but her motherrole in Hulk I think is very, very impressive. What a difference a director makes.
I can only judge what I see though Goon. I didn’t jump on here saying “KATE WINSLET SUCKS!”, I just said I wasn’t a fan, and I was honest about what I had seen her in.
“So in otherwords Henrik, if you think modern actresses lack authority and are unable to be scary, well, maybe that says more about your opinion of women”
Not modern actresses, actresses (and actors) in generel. It probably does say something about my opinion of women, I would be curious to hear what you think it says. I just think art in generel are pretty boring unless there is edge, unless something is scary about them. A non-scary performance in acting gets boring.
“In addition, from what I understand about the Reader, there’s no benefit to her being an entirely scary character. For someone who complains about complexity you should be able to understand why, but then again, you’re also judging the scariness of her performance through a frigging trailer.”
Again, I can only judge what I see. As for no benefit storywise, think real life. The people who had positions of authority in concentration camps, probably had some authoritative charisma, something that is drawing people into them, something strong and scary. I guess this movie could be made about on of the exceptions, just like The Patriot is made about the guy in America who didn’t have slaves.
Meryl Streep can do it all though. She is the yardstick to measure acting against.
I did see The Hours, but it was a long time ago and I don’t remember a thing about it – other than Kidman’s big nose. I would see it again if caught in the mood. I think I thought it was boring. The Reader is not boring once it gets going, but it just takes a long time to get there and by the time I did, the spark wasn’t there anymore.
Little Children is one of the best movies of the decade.
As for the kid never seeing his family, I was thinking the exact same thing, Kristin. There is a moment when he does finally come home and everybody is acting really strange. The father says something like, “I knew he would finally return back to us.” I took this to mean he had actually been staying with Hannah for the whole time. But yeah, unclear and very sloppy film making.
The more I think about this movie the more and more I dislike it. All the hype surrounding these Oscar season movies is really disappointing. Halfway through Revolutionary Road. It’s alright so far. We’ll see if it picks up.
“I did see The Hours, but it was a long time ago and I don’t remember a thing about it – other than Kidman’s big nose.”
Deep. Andrew for fucks sake don’t embarass yourself in public. You writing something like that and then praising Little Children makes me think The Reader probably has multiple facets of characterization and complexity that you just didn’t get, and that Little Children is made as if it is for little children. I appreciate your honesty though, we would never get along in real life, but you only figure that out if people are honest.
I saw The Hours like six years ago. I didn’t realize that forgetfulness was embarrassing.
There is definitely some character complexity in The Reader. It just takes too long to get there. I mean, I can only watch Winslet and Kross have sex so many times before the point is lost and it is just dragging on for no reason. Sex scenes are not compelling to me… unless they’re done the way they are in something like Little Children.
“[Winslett] is unable to be scary, even as a nazi in the trailer for this.” – She’s not meant to be scary. Quite the opposite actually.
“I didn’t realize that forgetfulness was embarrassing.”
It is not per se, but pointing out Kidmans nose as if that’s the only part that is memorable about The Hours is.
Henrik, christ almighty, quit being such a shithead. Andrew said all he remembered about it was her nose. He didn’t say that was the only thing memorable about it. The movie came out ages ago and I’m sure all that many people remember about it is Kidman’s fake nose, especially if they haven’t watched it since 2002 when it came out.
Stop being so asinine and picking fights for no reason.
Jonathan, we would never get along either, but our differences are more extreme, and as such we rarely ever acknowledge eachother.
It is interesting to acknowledge differences, to point out flaws and realize how relationships can and can not function. There is no malice intended. I don’t mean to pick a fight based on the differences of character evident.
I am annoyed with the concentration on Nicole Kidmans make-up. If it wasn’t Nicole Kidman people would not give a shit about the nose, fact is, that’s how the bitch looked, and why do people make a big fuzz? It’s uninteresting, and to focus on it is a sign of poor brainactivity. I mean what is this, hollywood uncensored?
Henrik your verging on Ayn Rand territory. You’re not smart enough to be this condescending.
Mainly the reason the nose is so memorable is because that is what everyone was talking about at the time. It was a big deal – maybe it shouldn’t be (like you said), but it was.
Just because I don’t remember the movie doesn’t say much about myself or the movie itself. There could have been any number of reasons why I don’t remember much of it. I would very much like to revisit it in the future if I can find some time.
I highly recommend it, it’s a great movie.
so Andrew says all he remembers is the big nose, which obviously is a joking way of saying he didn’t remember much about the movie – its like saying “I read Cyrano de Bergerac in high school and all I remember is his big nose” – is that so offensive?
Dr. Malcolms new theory:
When there is nothing to be upset about, Henrik finds a way.
Never saw THE HOURS, but I enjoyed Billy Elliot well enough as a time passer.
(And I’ve not worked up the momentum to see either of the Winslet pictures this holiday season. Because one is a WWII story and the other looks like an inferior (and period) version of LITTLE CHILDREN.
I never saw the Rev. Road trailer until right before Benjamin Button, and now I’m pretty psyched for it. I don’t care if it ‘looks like’ Little Children, because its a Sam Mendes film and I always give him the benefit of the doubt. Even when he’s not so great, he’s still pretty good.
Just saw Revolutionary Road. Review forthcoming, but let’s just say it’s in my top ten of the year…. easily.
is that actually playing anywhere yet or did you get your hands on it through ‘certain deeds’
I’d rather not say in a public forum.
Just got back from THE READER. Loved it! I found it interesting and profound, complex and simply rivetting. There is only one major misstep at the end of the film, but otherwise this is one of the worthy ‘prestige films’ punted into the cinemas this year.
Excellent stuff.
I’m kind of surprised at the indifference here. Isn’t this the same folks who like The Lives of Others and The Counterfeiters. I think The Reader is actually the better of these three films in many ways. The young actor David Kross is really something, and the two scenes with Lena Olin are also magnificent in their restraint.
The first half of the film was grand precisely because it was such an enignma. The best part is that the film never wallows in sentimentality or judgement (a strange thing considering a lot of the film is about the whys and hows of judgement in the eyes of the law). Overall it was very satisfying to see that nothing is ever simple and the benefit of the doubt should always be given to people and their motives.
To all those who think that the world is angry people piling on top of each other for selfish gain, I’d suggest sitting down with an open mind and viewing The Reader.
I can’t really disagree with anything you wrote, except for the part about the first half of the film being “grand.” “Grand” is not the word that springs to mind. Boring is what springs to mind for me.
Nothing is compelling in the slightest. All the school scenes were needless bullshit, the two leads sleeping with each other over and over and over again, etc. It was absolute tedium. Even the performances weren’t all that spectacular at that point. Basically the film never gets interesting until Winslett leaves.
In fact, no that I think about it. Almost the ENTIRE first hour of the movie is pointless. All that needs to be established is that he reads to her and they slept together a few times. Everything else is needless for the point of the rest of the story.
And Yes, Lena Olin is great as always (in her five minutes).
I hated the Lives of Others that sappy piece of bullshit.
Ah yes, I remember Henrik saying that the story was unrealistic or something.
:/
What do you expect from the nihilist.
His life must be exhausting.
In·ter·net (ĭn’tər-nět’)
n. An interconnected system of networks that allows one to scoff at the inferior tastes of all those who surround you.
I hate you, and I hate the things you like!
What is this, group bullying now? You’re all way older than me, and should be more responsible.
I have a hard time getting excited about this movie. In fact, with a few exceptions this holiday season, I have a hard time getting excited about most of the movies offered up in December. The Reader, like Revolutionary Road, looks like another uninspired way of recycling an idea that was exhausted when it was initially mentioned. And the fact that this is from the director of The Hours doesn’t help. Though, to be honest, I don’t think the directing was The Hours’ problem; it had more to do with a script that found three identical ways of saying the same nonsensical message.