A drama film that explores the themes of justice, forgiveness and humanity. A student from the courtroom sees a woman he loved and spent a lot of time with. She is accused of terrible crimes. How does he feel and want to help her if he can?
An important point I didn't take into account: This is happening in post-war Germany. Setting and history are appropriate.
I didn’t like the images and characters. There are films capable of even the most vile action to present so that the viewer is imbued with the atmosphere. This picture does the opposite: love, sex, family, society - all this is disgusting. If in the case of a romantic connection, such positioning develops into a plot twist and forms the main conflict, then questions remain about all other aspects of the life of young Michael (Michael, the main character).
I'll celebrate a good acting. Kate Winslet just got into the role. I just don't know why the hell we have so many sex scenes? They do not attract the viewer due to the genre and atmosphere, they tie very weakly to the character. However, to the “habbalism”, uncouthness, willfulness of the woman, so annoying to me at the beginning, the claims fell away during the viewing, the minuses turned into pluses, the phrase “no one should apologize” became meaningful.
Shooting special art is not distinguished: beautiful shots, interesting plans no. However, the minimum necessary function is to emphasize emotions, performs.
In principle, for a thoughtful person, the best alternative to this film can serve as real historical chronicles of such trials (you will understand when you watch). There will be no final conclusions, only sentences. And as far as they are fair, decide for yourself.
And it's going to take a lot longer. 15-20 minutes can be cut without losing meaning.
There are entertaining moments and if you've never reflected on the humanity of justice, then rate the tape above.
She walked through the beginning of his life, as if nothing had been thought of.
She threw words ("you are an empty place for me"), and the young man, meanwhile, grew up at this time, and probably not such a "fertilizer" was needed for his forming soil.
Despite the tragedy, the film with a slightly warm undertone and delicacy.
For me, first of all, a love story and a story with a free interpretation. There is no clear answer, whether it was cowardice or a great power, allowing events to develop in their own way. And then each bear his punishment - the main character - for not being smart, did not want to learn, develop, and did not realize it (but as we see, this desire arose after, in prison). And the main character - perhaps tormented by his inaction for the rest of his life. What is it like to love someone who has destroyed others? Has not his love acquired a too bright shade of disgust? And such a contradiction is to be ashamed of your illiteracy, to prevent the relief of your fate, but to be able to kill yourself? With all due respect, whatever the degree of desperation (his tapes may have resurrected her and then killed her) it takes a lot of courage to make that decision. The flowers he carried to his last meeting - a cowardly gesture of trying to make amends for the silence (and adding to this the workplace and the apartment on release) or acknowledging the feelings he carried through time?
The hero himself is also interesting, his isolation, his relationship with his daughter, whom he was able to open up to - despite what his parental family was like, in which it would seem that he was neglected ("Go away, he is contagious") and what kind of relationship he had with his father, to whom he did not come to the funeral - and relieve her of the burden of guilt, as if she was the cause of his alienation.
I really liked the scene with unforgiveness, but still accepting a tin box through Michael as if from the hands of a murderer. From the point of view of Nazism, the film was not considered at all.
It’s also a movie about what we leave behind in other people’s lives. I don't think he's a coward, maybe he had a reason for that. Like her. The only question is whether we are aware of the power of our influence and what we do with this awareness.
Have a good time! And conscious thoughts after.
A film on the theme of carnal passion with a large age difference. He is an inexperienced young schoolboy; she is much older than him, but still a relatively young woman who keeps a dark secret within herself.
I must say that the character of Kate Winslet turned out in something interesting, at least he has a sense of character. And this is despite the fact that Kate is simply a monstrously non-photogenic person, especially when she starts crying, so any successful role of her is perceived as an acting triumph! Perhaps that’s why she won an Oscar for her role. But frankly, the fact that the main role was entrusted to her, can be perceived with a fair amount of skepticism - it is somehow difficult to imagine her in the erotic image of a mistress, and even highly experienced, in contrast to the same Monica Bellucci in the role of Malena, which really suits her. But in this film, Winslet really tried her best (to the best of her abilities, of course) and in erotic episodes. Love scenes look very desirable, natural and most importantly romantic. Nothing like this would have been seen in, say, the '70s or '80s. After all, modern eroticism is completely different from what it was before. Whether people have changed, or filmed differently (most likely both), but the bed scenes have become really realistic, honest and, as they say, “closer to the body.” And the theme of the film contributes to romance, rather than debauchery - even the most sublime story about "Lolita", when a large age difference is in favor of the man, is still perceived as pedophilia, perversion and vulgarity. It is another thing when the elder is a woman: you pity her, you sympathize with her, you rejoice for the boy - paradise, in a word!
All this would not have been possible without the excellent work of the director. The frame – especially in the apartment of Hannah Schmitz – looks amazing, rich, but not excessive, which creates a beautiful cozy atmosphere, from which you do not want to leave.
But everything else raises a number of questions and, above all, the characters. If Kate Winslet can still be forgiven for her natural non-kinogenicity due to beautiful erotic scenes, then the character of Rafe Feinz looks much more static. It is not clear why he was invited. This guy had great roles in the movie, in the same "Schindler's List", but here, apparently, it was not so important who to call. In his place could be anyone: the same. – Leonardo DiCaprio Liam Neeson or Michael Fassbender.
In general, the behavior of the main character causes easy (or rather, strong) bewilderment. We are persuaded that he always loved his first woman... but did nothing to alleviate her plight, though there were plenty of opportunities. Instead, he decided to keep the relationship with her as a dirty secret that carried through his life, during which he sat quietly on his ass, continuing to like “love and suffer”, tambourine into the microphone and sending audiobooks while the object of his desires languished in dungeons. Half of the screen time the main character behaves like a cowardly scoundrel, then frankly throwing his “beloved”, then suddenly appearing with flowers. One gets the impression that all this sublime melodrama was only for this degenerative tidyman to be able to rant on its ruins without drawing any conclusions or groping for the slightest point of spiritual growth. Emptiness. Nothing.
Other characters in the film are no less perplexing, not because they do something bad or strange, but because they exist at all. I don’t understand the character of my daughter – why is she here? This character does not carry any semantic load and the plot of the film would not fundamentally change, even if all members of the Michael family were thrown out of it, precisely because there is nothing to say to them to the main character.
As for the figure of the professor, this is a great shot. Very reminiscent of the personification of the director himself - the whole film only mumbles and asks superficial questions, as if he is not a professor of law, but a regular psychotherapist. Bruno Gantz is a great actor! I expected more from his role than the constant questioning of “what did you feel, what did you think, and what do you intend to do?” The professor could have given a couple of clever moral thoughts, but no – instead he frankly admits that “modern society is not based on morality, but on laws.” It's empty again.
All in all, holes and white spots. A dramatic love story did not work here - there are too many empty random people, whose presence is doubtful and leads to nothing. But eroticism still pays off, and watching her performed by the terrible Kate Winslet was interesting.
The film ends with the phrase “One woman helped me...” Could the director have allowed himself to end up like this?
The film ends with the phrase “One woman helped me...” Could the director afford to end up like this by accident?
Let's say no. How did Hannah help the hero, obviously destroying him before his life began? Having caused him so much inconvenience, disappointment, pain, shame, doubt, regret, predetermining the future and even its end, removing from it fragments of freedom.
The boy at the beginning of the film says, "We always do what you want." This is followed by a kiss – an allegory of trying to participate in a relationship scenario. This kiss is the first and last step of the hero, not in the direction of Hannah’s movement, but in the direction of herself.
I think he's telling them what he wants her to know. After all, the director shows through the protagonist’s protest that he wants Hannah to learn more about him. This kiss contains everything the young man really wants to tell her. That’s how he says about his age, because on that day he gets a year older. It’s like he’s saying to her, ‘I aspire to you with everything I have and everything I can achieve with you.’
He reports on his suddenly discovered ability. From now on, it's all for her. For her, he keeps silent in court, dooming himself, not her. For her, just doing what she wants.
“It doesn’t matter how we feel,” says the professor, “it matters what we do.” But for Michael, only feelings mattered. I think he entered law school in opposition to that, perhaps to learn to live differently. But I never tried it or tried it, but chose something else.
The coldness that the hero’s daughter talks about and that we notice in the film in relation to the whole world, except Hannah’s world, tells us how warm and strong feelings the hero is capable of, but how he knows how to preserve them for only one woman in the world. But they still exist in this world. Outwardly playing by the general rules - making friends, relationships, then a wife, family, career. ..
So how did Hannah help the hero if, according to the obvious fragments of life, she only took the scenarios of her development from him?
This is the most important question – if you believe the director and not the accident of the last sentence, Hannah saved him from these postulates. She saved Mikael not from scarlet fever (although he spent several months in a boring bed, “not even being able to read books”), but from a boring life in the form of those (and these) years. From idle existence, empty entertainment, unnecessary and unimportant tanning, but giving the only really valuable. Because only love (every time in a new form) matters.
The boy at the beginning of the story with his clothes, manners, movements tells the viewer about what is prepared for him. And then the coal on his face makes first changes in the picture of the world, and then predetermining it, but full of surprises “I don’t want to know what will happen next”, “I thought you like surprises” – that’s what Hannah saved him from.
The desire to sell a collection of stamps for potatoes and beer is a choice and a life, not to keep them forever under a layer of thick light-tight tracing.
I read Bernhard Schlink’s book, The Reader 39; and to say that I was delighted and at the same time filled with sadness is to say nothing. Naturally, I had to watch the film adaptation and, as it turned out, this is the case when the original source is more interesting than the adaptation.
The main character of the film named Michael Berg delves into the memories of his youth. At the age of 15, he meets tram conductor Hannah Schmitz, she is 20 years older than Michael. Despite the age difference, they begin an affair. For a teenager, this becomes an important moment that will later affect his life and leave a characteristic imprint. Of course, their relationship remains under the veil of secrecy from others. Michael often reads books aloud to Hannah, hence the title. However, the couple is not so sweet, there are troubles, they periodically quarrel. There is a feeling that Hannah is hiding something, and one day she disappears from Michael’s life.
The film differs somewhat from the book in that the disclosure of topics and the order of the narrative is slightly different, so the effect and impressions are created just as different. In no way do I want to say that the picture turned out bad, on the contrary, the adaptation turned out to be successful.
A whole range of emotions is provided, because extremely important topics of the time are well revealed (events take place in the second half of the 20th century), and they are still relevant today. This is a movie about love, pain, guilt, remorse. Despite this, it looks in one breath.
Every 10 minutes, your imagination stops working and tries to predict the continuation. Moments are shocking. Sometimes it gets sad with a lump in the throat. This story is about the fact that silence leads to more serious consequences than lying. That you can't describe with words, facial expressions, or gestures. You just keep watching what you see on the screen. Someone will see the battle between good and evil. Someone is a battle of morality and barbarism. Personally, I saw that cowardice and fear lead to the most serious consequences. You will not find anyone indifferent to this film. Most will close the tab for 10 to 15 minutes. The pleasure of the film is not to be expected either. It raises too taboo topics. But if you like to interpret the action from different points of view, and not only from your own, this film will fascinate you.
The film score on my scale is 6.8
Play the main actors - 8 out of 10. they play like a stick.
Playing minor actors - 5 out of 10. just passers-by.
The decor and picture are normal - 6 out of 10. The atmosphere of the post-war period is not fully conveyed. The following years are better, but still a lot of extra or vice versa too much.
Directing work is 8 out of 10. It's okay here. But not great and not great.
Cinematography - 5 out of 10 - the feeling that put the camera and went to smoke. Very strange.
The emotion of the movie is 9 out of 10. There were many. Not the whole spectrum, but 90%. Hence the evaluation
A very sad story about a rapidly started and curiously developing love story. Everything seemed like a fairy tale, despite his age. At the same time, the main character was in love and completely did not worry about this. It was all about being with Hannah. Kissing her at the waitress, was a real handsome and well done. Ignoring a peer he didn’t need. But the important point of the trial turned it all upside down.
And it's not entirely clear whether this was done out of pride, or out of a lack of education, or just a desire to keep something secret. The court's decision sounded like a sentence for Michael. Probably at this moment, thanks to his love for heroin in him, a real lawyer from a baby, a novice lawyer, should have appeared. He did not interfere, although he probably understood the truth and could try to change something. The mystery eventually ate him, did not let him live calmly.
No wonder they say that the worst thing in life, looking back, do not regret something not done.
On the other hand, everything happens in life. He had moments of happiness in his life. It happens that someone in a lifetime and this sometimes does not happen. Life for many people is difficult and difficult, no matter what period of history it took place. Therefore, he can remember the joyous and insane happiness that happened to him in life. Yes, not for long, almost fleeting, but very happy. On the other hand, he found a way to continue communicating and even taught something. There is no need to talk about physical intimacy, but there was hope to meet.
I watched the movie without taking my eyes off. This is a very sad love story. As a rule, true love stories are always far from ideal, but so rich and real. Because of which, as a rule, are not very long, unfortunately for a variety of reasons. If the heroine was also not so proud, closed his eyes to age, skills and other completely unimportant things, perhaps their story would be longer and more joyful.
Reader is a novel by German writer Bernhard Schlink, published in 1995. Two years later, the book was translated into English and became the first German-language novel to top the New York Times bestseller chart. And you know that when a literary work acquires the status of a bestseller, it will receive a film adaptation, it is only a matter of time. No matter what quality the story is told in the book (this is now a stone in the garden "50 shades" and "Hunger Games"), people will still go to the movies.
The film tells about the love relationship between a young guy Michael Berg and a woman named Hannah Schmitz, who is 20 years older than him. The fact that such connections are condemned by people is irrelevant. These things happen, accept as fact.
In a similar story, we see that initially the main characters get sex from each other, until one day Hannah asks a guy to read to her. There is a lot of romance in this, since a woman listens very carefully to the guy and their feelings are revealed. But the love story ends as abruptly as it begins. One day Hannah disappears and Michael, a law student, suddenly meets her in the dock. She is being tried for her past with Nazism. A similar twist in the novel, in the film, hits the narrative like a Chekhov gun.
The story is told in Berg’s recollections, and we see that the man has not departed from the story. His conscience torments him, he feels isolated. Rafe Fiennes with a small amount of screen time was able to give a good performance. The young version of Michael is played by a German guy David Cross, and against the background of two excellent actors, he is perceived weakly, but decently.
The role of Hannah Schmitz performed Kate Winslet, marked by a gold statuette for her. Everyone joked about when Leonardo DiCaprio will receive the Oscar, but anyone at one time even remembered the girl from the Titanic? That at the beginning of the film, that in court you watch her silently. Although I won’t hide it, I doubt that the heroine with her “highlight” would have been where she was in life. But Kate Winslet is very good, I won’t argue.
Making a claim on the script is silly because the story is well adapted. At one time, the actions of the characters from the source caused me a lot of questions, and I did not believe that it was impossible to do otherwise. The novel deals with a good thought: “What we fear is not important, what we do is important.” And in the end, it turns out that the heroes broke themselves because ... they were ashamed? Is it okay that the question of your future is worth it? Perhaps it is better sometimes to publicly shame yourself than to spend the rest of your life with a guilt complex?
Oh, and I found opinions where the film was scolded for explicit scenes between young Berg and Hannah. It’s like, “Nifigase, the 16th minute of the movie and they’re having sex!” And someone criticized the novel for the intimate connections of the characters. Oh, so Charles Bukowski, who has coitus on almost every 20th page, is that a model of chastity? And in the film, the guy shone naked body more than Winslet, so lovers of nudity, pass by.
As a result, we have an excellent drama based on a quality source. There are no prerequisites for the atrocities of Nazism, although they use the Holocaust as one of the engines of the characters. History will pass, but the feelings will remain and the fate of people will change dramatically.
It’s sad that the film is good, but it could be even better if it was closer to the original source. As always, watching the movie caught after reading the book, so briefly first about it. The book was found in the collection of forbidden love, and a brief review did not reveal what utter hell lurks in the second half of the book. Anyway, reading was very exciting to me, at the end there were tears and sadness, and under the impression of it I immediately decided to watch the film adaptation, especially in the lead role of Kate Winslet, and my beloved Ralph Fiennes flashes.
Considering that the events follow the book quite closely, I generally liked it. The actors look good in their seats. Although in my mind, David Cross could not have grown up in Ralph Fiennes. A lot of people criticize the first part of the film for the many bed scenes, but I have to admit, when I started watching the film, I was very interested in how it would all be filmed, given that in the book the boy is 15 years old, and in fact he is a child. Many moments from the book in the film do not show, and it remains to figure out why the characters did so and not otherwise. Fortunately, my reality was supplemented by a book and overall the film left a good aftertaste. A film about war, murder and fascism can hardly be considered a good one, but I hope I will be correctly understood. A good aftertaste is when you think for a long time, regret or rejoice, and the more you think about it, the more questions there are. Unfortunately, in many reviews there are many spoilers, but without them it is difficult to make a sensible review. Therefore, I suggest that you get acquainted first with the source, then with the film, and I am sure that this story will not leave you indifferent.
I think the creators did a good job on the film, the actors, costumes, places and other surroundings look realistic. Kate Winslet in this role I remember for a long time.
And of course, for lovers of unambiguity, this movie is not suitable. If you want to know exactly who is bad and who is good, you have 17 moments of spring.
Honestly, I’m very ambiguous about this film. I, like everyone else, of course read the classics and know the theory that love is submissive. However, this age-related love bothered me, but only in the beginning. With the progress of the film, everything that happens begins to look so harmonious that it becomes extremely unusual to see the main characters separately. I like to look at the simplicity of this relationship, the way she is overwhelmed with emotions and she cries when he reads for her, the way the two of them take a bath, the way they make love, it's a really great relationship.
What is this movie about? About love, about loss, about how suddenly a person can catch up with his past, about second chances, about the fact that fate will always bring a person to the one who is intended for him and will bring him more than once, as well as ... about priorities.
The last one hit me the most. As someone who loves and values his freedom more than anything else, it’s hard for me to imagine that I’m going to give it up. Personally, I'm willing to go over all my priorities for her. That is why I was so impressed by the spirit of the main character of the film. She betrayed her freedom, she knew what would happen to her, and she didn’t hesitate. I will never understand her, but I admire her.
But I always understand the man in this movie. I understand his pain. It hurts when you lose your love. There is nothing to compare this pain. It breaks heart and soul, leaving only a black hole inside and leaving no hint of hope. If you add to that the way he wanted but couldn’t help her... it’s crazy powerlessness. It is difficult to imagine how strong a person must be to be able to accept the choice of another, how selfless love must be.
I’m not going to look at the political and historical aspects of this film, because I don’t talk about politics, and I don’t understand history. I just think that in the situation that the audience sees in this film, there is no right.
I love this movie for the sincerity and the way they both show their love.
' Reader' is a novel by German writer Bernhard Schlink, published in 1995. Two years later, the book was translated into English, and became the first German-language novel to topped the bestseller chart ' New York Times'. And you know that when a literary work acquires the status of a bestseller, it will receive a film adaptation, it is only a matter of time. No matter what quality the story is told in the book (this is now a stone in the garden '50 shades ' and 'The Hunger Games');), people will still go to the movies.
The film tells about the love relationship between a young guy Michael Berg and a woman named Hannah Schmitz, who is 20 years older than him. The fact that such connections are condemned by people is irrelevant. These things happen, take it as a fact.
In a similar story, we see that initially the main characters get sex from each other, until one day Hannah asks a guy to read to her. There is a lot of romance in this, since a woman listens very carefully to the guy and their feelings are revealed. But the love story ends as abruptly as it begins. One day Hannah disappears and Michael, a law student, suddenly meets her in the dock. She is being tried for her past with Nazism, and as it turned out, she once asked a guy to read aloud to her for a reason. A similar twist in the novel, in the film, hits the narrative like a Chekhov gun.
The story is told in Berg’s recollections, and we see that the man has not departed from the story. His conscience torments him, he feels isolated. Rafe Fiennes with a small amount of screen time was able to give a good performance. The young version of Michael is played by the German guy David Cross, and against the background of two excellent actors, he is perceived weakly, but with dignity.
The role of Hannah Schmitz was performed by Kate Winslet, marked by a gold statuette for her. Everyone joked about when Leonardo DiCaprio will receive the Oscar & #39; but anyone at one time even remembered the girl with the Titanic & #39;? ' English Rose' demonstrates the powerful potential of acting. That at the beginning of the film, that in court you watch her silently. Although I won’t hide it, I doubt the heroine with her ' highlight ' would have been where she was in life. But Kate Winslet is good, I will not argue.
Making a claim on the script is silly because the story is well adapted. At one time, the actions of the characters from the source caused me a lot of questions, and I did not believe that it was impossible to do otherwise. The novel deals with a good thought: ' What we fear is not important, what we do is important' And in the end, it turns out that the heroes broke themselves because ... they were ashamed? Is it okay that the question of your future is worth it? Maybe it is better sometimes to publicly shame yourself, rather than to run around with a guilt complex all your life?
Oh, and I found opinions where the film was scolded for explicit scenes between young Berg and Hannah. Like 'Nifigase, the 16th minute of the movie, and they already have sex!'. And someone criticized the novel for the intimate connections of the characters. Oh, so Charles Bukowski, who has coitus on almost every 20th page, is that a model of chastity? And in the film, the guy shone naked body more than Winslet, so lovers of nudity, pass by.
As a result, we have an excellent drama based on a quality source. There are no prerequisites for the atrocities of Nazism, although they use the Holocaust as one of the engines of the characters. History will pass, but the feelings will remain and the fate of people will change dramatically.
Good day, dear friends! I saw this very controversial film for the first time a couple of years ago, although I had heard about it before. Before this movie, the only movie I knew Kate Winslet from was Titanic 39 (but in Titanic, Kate is very different, and the distance between them is 11 years).
For me, this is a film about love, but love is strange, it seemed that there was nothing in common between the characters, but nevertheless, some invisible threads link them through years and distances. The film tells us about the 50s of the last century, post-war Germany. Between an adult forty-year-old woman and a young boy, after a brief casual acquaintance, a close, intimate relationship arises. The guy is only 15 years old, in fact a child and a grown woman, someone... most probably will even say that it is terrible, vile and criminal! I partially agree, there is nothing good in such relations, but both of our heroes were essentially lonely, not very necessary to their loved ones (Hanna, in my opinion, had no relatives at all), and biological age in this case is not a very objective criterion. Of course, such a relationship could not last long, circumstances separate our heroes for many years, Hannah disappears from Michael’s life, and when years later, they meet again, he sees a completely different woman in front of him, with his gloomy skeletons in the closet.
Film ' Reader' based on the novel of the same name by German writer Bernhard Schlink. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t compare it.
In the film, in the first part, there are quite a lot of candid scenes between Hannah and Michael, nothing beyond that, but still, some of the critics believe that these scenes were unnecessary and should have been cut. I do not agree to understand the essence of the relationship between the characters, these scenes are necessary, they are not superfluous, although they are devoid of romance (not for children of course, but this film and without erotic scenes, not at all childish a priori). Such a strange relationship was formed between our heroes, no one promised anyone anything, no one demanded anything in return, they just enjoyed what is now, without thinking about the future. Was it love? I find it difficult to answer, but they definitely needed each other.
Hannah, in any case, left her mark on Michael’s life, became almost the most important woman in his life. She made an impression on him from the first meeting, but the paradox is that she did not try to please him at all, rather she should have pushed him away. Even after learning the terrible secrets of Hannah’s past, her guilt, sins and the many sins she committed, he did not turn away from her, but tried to understand, and perhaps even forgive!
What struck me about Hannah Schmitz? It's her pride. What she had done in the past should have hated her, but for some reason I didn’t, I was ready to understand her and even regret her. She had a chance to evade punishment, to mitigate her guilt, but for some reason I don't understand, she didn't. She took upon herself not only her own sin, but also someone else’s. The punishment was much harsher than it deserved. It's hard to understand, but maybe she wanted to atone for it. This woman has a conscience, and she was the toughest judge. This film raises a very heavy theme of the guilt of the German people. Even today, the participation of this people in the war on the side of the fascists remains a heavy burden on the rest of the world. This film shows us the other side of the coin. We are used to sympathizing with the victims of Nazi concentration camps, Jews and other peoples who suffered under the Nazis, but we never thought about, or even tried to understand, those women who served as wardens in concentration camps. The film ' Reader' directed by Stephen Daldry, asks us to think about it. The film does not excuse or whitewash anyone, just tries to show the story from a slightly different angle.
Why does the painting call the reader? Because the plot is built on the fact that from the first days of acquaintance, Michael reads aloud his favorite classics, and she is happy to listen to him. By the way, Michael for a long time could not guess why Hannah likes to listen as he reads, and not doing it herself. It wasn't until much later that he learned that Hannah just couldn't read. By the way, this fact at the trial was very important, but Hannah somehow kept silent about him. I don't belittle Hannah's guilt, but she was in a concentration camp, like many other women wardens, doing her job, because there was no one else, for the good of fascism, without fully realizing what she was doing. Hannah was not an insensitive and cruel person, she tried to help, mitigate the fate of the prisoners. How the story of Hannah and Michael ended, I will not say, anyone can see for themselves.
I'd like to point out that Kate Winslet's amazing performance, of course I knew her from Titanic, but it's a different level of acting. Hannah Schmitz, the character is more complex for an actress than the young romantic Rose, and the love here is not so beautiful. Of course, bravo to make-up artists who were able to make a young woman first a middle-aged woman, and then an old woman in general, this should be tried!
In general, the attitude towards the main characters after each viewing of this film changes, at first, despite my past sins, only Hannah caused me pity, but after I watched the film more thoughtfully again, I also added pity for Michael. His life also passed, somehow lonely, unhappy, aimless.
To sum up, I highly recommend watching this film, to anyone who has not seen it, it may not be so easy to understand, hard to watch, but it makes you think about many things. I can not wish you a pleasant viewing, since the film is heavy, but it has a lot of subtle psychological mysteries and not simple people.
Michael Berg (Rafe Fiennes), a 52-year-old lawyer, is constantly thinking about his past. For almost 40 years, he has been gnawing at the thought that he could radically change his fate, and not only his own. Michael at the age of 15 fell in love with a woman older than himself and between them arose ' stormy' feelings - rainy weather and wet clothes helped him get into a small room Hannah Schmitz, and find there friendship and the first ' sex' upbringing. Youth, violent sex, and endless ' washing ' in Hannah's bathroom - ended, and fate gave them a second meeting after 8 years. It took place in court, where Michael, already a law student, had an internship, and Hannah, as a defendant, was accused of involvement in the brutal murders at Auschwitz - there she worked as one of the wardens.
"The Reader" (English The Reader) is a drama directed by Steven Daldry based on the bestselling novel of the same name by the writer Bernhard Schlink, which was included in the lists of the most popular books of The New York Times newspaper, which still has ' cult' status.
The story, written for Michael (Michael) Berg, spans nearly 40 years. It begins in 1958 in West Germany, in the provincial town of Neustadt. Then, eight years later, it was transferred to Heidelberg, where Michael studied law. The final part of the story takes place in the 1990s.
The truth about ' the past' Hannah - Michael accepts with humility and some ' indifference' - he takes a lonely walk through the death camp, which has become a museum, looks at the gas furnaces, and seems to understand nothing. And David Cross - as a young Berg - shows a liberated young man, with the face of a young man, who is simply open to 'the surrounding world'. Michael Berg & #39: Rafe Fiennes, with his tired and sad face, lives his closed life as a lawyer who divorces his wife, visits his daughter, and one day begins recording his voice reading Homer. These records are sent by a gray-haired Hannah Schmitz, sentenced to life imprisonment, and who in her cell for the first time in her life learns to read and write. 'I was just offered a job as a warden - and I agreed' - Hanna says at the trial simply and clearly with glass eyes. Kate Winslet for the role of Hannah Schmitz - took her first 'Oscar' and several other major, acting film awards. Her heavy and disturbing look, which she had even during sex with Michael, runs through the film. Director Steven Daldry has created a very simple, clear and heavy drama about people who talk to you - hide in the soul ' a real storm'.
The story of youthful love (more like emotional, youthful, sexy ' recharge') Michael - secret and dark ' dream' a simple schoolboy who, instead of a relationship with a peer with pigtails and in a swimsuit on the beach - runs to the apartment of his adult ' girlfriend' kisses her naked body, has sex with her, reads her ' Odyssey' Homer, and 'The Lady with the Dog' Chekhov. He finds her on the wall of the cell - copied by her hand from a book - for the first time.
I don't like Kate Winslet. I've seen more than one movie with her, she's an amazing actress, that's true, but as a woman, I don't like her. It lacks depth and depth, or... It's kind of a rough rustic.
But in this picture I discovered her exactly as a woman and, above all, a woman.
The difficult role is played perfectly, the whole picture, in my opinion, rests on her play. Amazingly got used to the role, so believable that I can not believe that it is also a dressmaker, and Clementine, and even more so, Rose from the epic Titanic.
Although it seemed to me that the love on her part was more motherly and it was this fact that made her even more feminine.
The contrast of such love, cozy, homely, touching and cruel reality of the atrocities of Nazism, shocking and can not leave indifferent. The wardens in the film are not just Nazis, they are mothers, wives, neighbors who did work, even if deadly, but primarily for them - work, not murder and crime. For me, this is a new look at those events, unusual and very bold. After all, we brand the seal of evil one-sidedly, dividing all actions into black and white. But the world is not like this, it has millions of shades. And the one who is for you and me a villain, for someone the only and unique, the most tender and loved forever.
Rafe Fiennes is, as always, beautiful. Despite his stunning negative characters, the role of a man who carried through his life the love for the only woman for him, he also succeeded, one hundred percent.
Despite the frank scenes, vulgarity and vulgarity in the film is not, on the contrary, these scenes surprisingly add authenticity and realism to the relationship of the characters.
I certainly recommend this film to everyone, first of all, the younger generation (but still pay attention to the age qualification of zealous parents).
For me, the film falls short of 'Collection' but I’m quite confident that it’s one of the best movies I’ve seen in recent times.
The film did not cause me any romantic awe or tearful pity. But, as I understand it, such a task was not set. Still, this film is not an ordinary melodrama and personal relationships, I think, are only the background to the main idea.
And the main idea, in my opinion, is the role of man in what is happening around him.
Should a person be an active participant or just a cog in the process? A cog conscientious, neat, who fulfills his duties without questions and discussions, does not conflict, does not criticize, does not doubt anything.
The heroine in the film is pure water 'cog' She is completely and even a little grotesquely guileless, absolutely executive and conscientious. Her thinking is completely uncritical. Not a man, but the dream of all employers. She is executive, neat, not conflicted, not pretentious, does not discuss what is good in work and what is bad. She just tries to do what she's assigned to do as best she can. For her work (in peacetime), she is constantly being promoted. And none of the viewers have an internal conflict about this. I think that in this context, most even approve of her qualities as a good worker.
But war comes. Hannah goes to do a job that doesn't have much of a reputation. But with the responsibility that lies in it, she does this “work.”
And what we see is that even though she is conscientious, responsible, executive and neat, she is ultimately judged and judged.
So what's changed? The man is the same. But the conditions in which man now lives have changed. And in these circumstances, it would be time for a person to ask the question, "Where am I?" What's going on around me? What are the results of my conscientious work?” Had Hannah asked these questions, she would never have done it.
But can a cog who has always just worked stupidly and never asked himself these questions suddenly start asking them? Can a submissive brain suddenly begin to think critically?
The film clearly shows the idea that you can not live without thinking. One must learn to look and see, learn to think and realize, question and ask questions, and, of course, let what is happening through the prism of at least the elementary concept that “human life is priceless.”
And it is not for nothing that Hannah is presented as illiterate. After all, an educated person cannot be so completely serene and straightforward in his thoughts and actions. Education is like a navigation system that constantly adjusts the course, keeping a person on the right path, not allowing you to slide into a ravine and smear yourself there in the mud.
This navigation, by the way, works perfectly with Michael.
Despite the fact that he found out about Hannah, despite the general condemnation, he does not leave her. For him, Hannah is his first love. He knew her from a completely different side than she appears after (for this deeper understanding, the history of their relationship in the first part is shown in such detail). The bright, wonderful feeling that she gave him, combined with the education that allows him to look at things from different angles, allows Michael not to turn away from Hannah, but to show understanding and compassion for her.
I disagree with those who believe that Mikael chickened out when he didn’t discover Hannah’s secret. It may have been the wrong move legally, but it reflects Michael's attitude towards Hannah very well. It was not cowardly silence, but respect for the will of another person. He doesn't think he has the right to reveal her secret if she chooses not to reveal it.
By the way, playing David Cross (Michael in his youth) is something wonderful. It is amazing how much tenderness, kindness, admiration there can be in a young man’s gaze when he looks at his beloved. And the actor was so sincere that I think even Stanislavsky could say “I believe.”
Actually, all the actors play very organically (maybe Rafe Fiennes is a bit smooth, but this is a personal opinion).
I was impressed by the scene of the meeting of Fiennes and Olin at the end of the film. Lena Olin perfectly conveyed the inherent American outward benevolence, but inner closeness and even pricklyness when trying to touch their personal world. Although the sincere and human is very visible when she asks to keep a tin box.
In this final meeting again appears the main idea of the film that a person must be educated, not to become a cog, a toy in the hands of others. On this occasion, the heroine Olin says a cool phrase, the essence of which is: Jews have communities for all cases. There are no illiterates among them.
The movie is worth watching. He makes you think. It's worth a lot.
It turns out that world cinema is very fond of the theme of love of mature women and young guys. But not all directors manage to make a really high-quality and high-quality film.
Stephen Daldry did it and succeeded 200%!
The film is very impressive.
Of course, not a small role in this was played by the cast, and he in this film is excellent. Kate Winslet and Rafe Fiennes have long established themselves as good dramatic actors, and their performance in Reading once again confirms that. But their young colleague from Germany - David Cross - they are not much inferior, despite his inexperience and small age.
What's this movie about? Probably about everything at once: about love, about attachment, about death, about pain and forgiveness, about sadness and courage too. But what he doesn't have is hatred.
Do we often meet people who change everything around us and make a huge typo for the rest of our lives? Probably not.
And to meet such a person, is it happiness or sorrow? Do you have to live in the past or not?
Everyone has their own answers to these questions, as well as Michael, the main character of the film.
One question haunts me: why “The Lady with the Dog” by A. P. Chekhov? Why this particular piece? Is it a hint or an allegory of what happens in the movie? And is Michael, according to the authors, the same dog? And Hannah, of course, the lady?
10 out of 10
Specific in its essence, the film about the relationship of an adult woman and a teenage boy for verification turns out to be a multi-layered work of art, between the layers of which you can see love carried through life, not burning in fire and not drowning in the commission of a crime. You can see people from two completely opposite sides. It is a way of understanding and repentance. And forgiveness. Forgiveness for those who have done evil to you, for those who have done evil to others, and forgiveness for themselves, which can be much more difficult.
The film is figuratively divided into two parts - the beginning of the life path of the couple and its culmination, turning everything upside down, but at the same time dotting all the dots over I. Kate Winslet perfectly coped with the role of Hannah, Rife Fiennes with the role of grown-up Michael - to watch their game is a complete pleasure. Young Michael didn’t make much of an impression on me, not because the actor didn’t play his role well, but because he wasn’t interesting as a teenager.
He evoked a lot more emotions in my student years, when the past is a new wave of emotions that forces him to rethink and make a very important decision about the person he still loved. And this decision was not about their relationship, it was more global to Hannah’s fate and left an imprint on the rest of his life.
I don’t know where to start, there are so many thoughts in my head. But I still want to write.
Let me start with the amazing atmosphere of this film. Germany of the second half of the 20th century is well shown - streets, cars, people. I disagree a little with the passages of 95, they seem ridiculous and unnecessary in the background of the whole story.
It feels like the film is divided into 2 parts. The first tells about the molestation of a young boy, which in itself causes many questions and reflections. And the second one is even more ruthless. What could be worse than the Nuremberg Trials?
As it seemed to me, the first part was a little drawn out, it lasted a little less than an hour, it seemed to have been a couple of years, and it turned out, only a year. But the subsequent part removed the entire dream that arose after numerous sexual encounters of the characters. Excerpts show the contact of the grown-up Michael and Hannah.
This film is an opportunity to look at the “Holocaust”, “guardians” and love.
I think it’s a film about a man who couldn’t resist fate and was sucked into the mess of history; a film about a man who didn’t voluntarily fall in love for life and was attached to someone who didn’t deserve it.
This picture really allows you to look at the problem of the Holocaust from a completely different, unexpected side. We are all used to considering the issues of World War II from the position of “bad-good”, here we are offered another option. And this allows us to understand that we are all human, and our actions are not the actions of soulless machines, but the result of our mental activity.
This is not a love story, this is a life story.
If you want to plunge into the historical past and reflect on human existence, then this film is just right.
The film is pleasant in appearance, well conveys the era. Brilliant performance of actors, not for nothing was so highly appreciated at the international level.
9 out of 10
What would you do? This is perhaps the most important question of this film. We can judge people all we want, but we never know what we would do in their place. We can also justify ourselves as much as we want, but only a few will take responsibility, as our heroine did.
Yes, it may seem that she was so ashamed of her illiteracy that she only took the blame for it, but it is not. Perhaps that was the moment she remembered all the girls she had read. I remembered the boy who read to her, she realized that because of her their lives will not be the same, and everything fell into place.
What about our boy? We could have judged him, too, because he could have saved his love, but he didn't. Hannah thought she was doing the right thing and let 300 women burn. Michael thought he was doing the right thing and let one woman burn.
But what would you do if you knew that the first and greatest love of your life, which you glorify as a goddess and an angel in the flesh, is an immoral monster?
She is ashamed of her illiteracy, he is ashamed to love her. She punishes herself with prison for her sins, and he punishes himself with loneliness for his sins. They are truly one, they mirror each other. But that doesn’t mean they can be together.
The film “Reader”, which brought Oscar Kate Winslet can not stay away from the educated mass audience. This drama will bring even more questions to your incomprehensible and confusing life, as well as tell about people with crippled fates, souls and lives.
What about Jeanne as a heroine? I do not think that the author gives it to the viewer for the question of who has the right to decide human destinies is raised. Each character in this film influences the fate of other people without knowingly maiming them. After all, if you look, the psyche of Michael crippled for life, early sexual contact with a mature woman left a strong imprint on the soul of the boy. Hannah was also responsible for the fate of innocent Jews who were guilty only of belonging to a particular nationality. But the viewer should not make only Hannah the arbiter of fate worthy of our censure. After all, Michael and the Jewish girl in turn became the judges for Hannah.
In this picture all the innocent victims of circumstances, power and time.
Michael's classmate touches on another trembled topic when he talks about 6 women who have been called to trial and about 1,000 who have committed silent evil but remain at large. There are eternal questions about forgiveness. The authors try to find a line between what can be forgiven and what is no longer possible. Most of the film is devoted to the question of “shame”. It is impossible to fully understand why a person is tormented by conscience. Sometimes terrible at first glance acts do not cause in us those remorse, which causes innocent prank.
The film should be watched, but thoughtfully, asking yourself all the above questions and even more.
The painting “Reader” in 2008 is a story about how transient time is, about the place of non-random accidents in the lives of people who fundamentally change and sometimes break human destinies. This is a film about choices that have sometimes been made for us by the era in which we live. The fate of those who fall under the wheels of history is difficult, how little we know about them.
The film consists of the memories of the main character, who is already a solid and mature lawyer, tells the story of his youth, and then the rest of his life, his daughter. The brightest and most beautiful part of the film is the first, in which the plot of the further story takes place. Familiarity. A beautiful woman of Balzac age helps a young man who has undergone an illness. The young man recovered, but did not forget the good deed, and when he came to thank his savior, he looked after her and saw her naked. It will come back again and again.
The very beginning of the film can cause controversy, as always cause controversy issues related to the relationship between an adult and an immature person. However, there is something pure in their connection. There seems to be no passion between them, no lust - everything from the very beginning happens as if it were taken for granted. Scenes of love are set especially sensitively, they are dominated by tenderness and although we watch two naked people, through their relationship still through the mystery.
In the future, the film raises more serious questions for the viewer. The mystery of love fades into the background. Now we face the challenge of choice and how that choice affects our lives. We see how subjective justice is, how transient an era is, and how rapidly the bureaucratic apparatus changes in it, leaving behind those who have only recently been its part and basis.
History also tells us that each of us will sooner or later be held accountable for our actions. Morality and law change faster than a single human life. The legal system is a house built on sand. Will such a house stand? Over the past century, almost every European country has radically changed its ideology, former patriots have become enemies, and oppositionists have become conservatives. It is necessary to respect the law, but the law cannot serve as a foundation for a house that is in danger of storms. The stone is the call of the heart, and it is only by it that we should be guided.
Age kills man, but it is man. A person tortures a person, sometimes with desire and passion, sometimes accidentally, sometimes subconsciously. We are an age, and we do it without realizing it. And no matter how dark the age in which we live, no matter how hard the past was, there will always be a place for love, even if it is devastating, destroying the future, but so necessary and the only real in the present moment.
One day you will make a decision with which you will live your whole life.
At first glance, it is not an original story - the love of a boy and an adult woman. I didn’t expect anything worthy of surprise from her, but I was wrong: the film turned out to be a double bottom. As if someone layer by layer washed plaster from the wall, exposing an ancient fresco of drama brought to tragedy. Something grabs you in the first minute by the skin and pulls you through the whole movie, and you hope the ending will be a happy ending, but you know, no, it's a different level of cinema. High.
So what's this movie about? Love? Yeah. Retribution? Absolutely. About loneliness? Sure. Betrayal? Of course. The continuity of generations? That too. It is like a house made up of human emotions – everything is there: the floor, the walls, and the roof. It is impossible to live in such a house - it is through destruction and pain. For two hours we live the lives of heroes. A young German woman, Hannah, who works as a tram conductor. Fifteen-year-old student of the gymnasium Michael. A chance encounter that turned their world around. She helped a sick, exhausted boy, escorted home. He returned three months later when he recovered because he had fallen in love for the first time in his life. They warmed up near each other, alone, full to the depths of their secret passion. But as time passes, Hannah leaves without telling where, Michael grows up, studies to become a lawyer. And one day they meet again. This is where the real tragedy begins when Michael discovers who his former lover was during the war. He is faced with a choice - to save or not, and no one will make this decision for him. Then I kept asking myself: what would his life have been like if Michael had made a different decision at the trial? Remember what the teacher told him before the judge's verdict? “If your generation doesn’t make the mistakes of my generation, why is it necessary?”
Erotic scenes, in my opinion, are quite chaste, they do not have animal lust, they are like paintings by Courbet or Modigliani - just look at happy people.
A multifaceted, psychological film that can not be watched in a hurry. But there was something missing in him. Just a little. Maybe an adult Michael?
9 out of 10
Art, including literary classics, contributes to the development of the soul. But there are exceptions. Hannah, despite her passion for literature, is a soulless person. In what environment she was brought up, how she was trained in childhood, we do not know. But we know that she is illiterate, hardworking, responsible, loves order. The fertile seeds of literature fell on the concrete slab. Not in a horse, as they say, oats.
I suppose she could have been a sister of mercy, a nurse in kindergarten and very responsibly carried out her duties, but still remained soulless.
Some time ago, she fed the girls of the prisoners who read her books, and then when it came time to free the bunks for the new arrivals, as it was customary to allow them to be spent. In peacetime, to satisfy her addiction, she chose a child, a boy of fifteen years, seduced him, took power over him and already paid with sex, not a piece of bread. And then he left, without even thinking about what kind of injury he would cause.
At the trial, she accepted the accusation not because of her honesty, but because, again, of her callousness, because she did not even understand what atrocities she had committed with her fellow accomplices. She did not even think of sympathy for people rushing in the fire, burning alive. She was like a robot doing her job. She was ashamed that she was illiterate. She did not even remember the terrible past and did not care at all about the people killed.
Emily, come out, he's contagious, says Michael Berg's mother to her youngest daughter, and in her dry, receding figure I find the answer to why the bond between 15-year-old Michael and adult Hannah Schmitz is forging. Some formalism of the family: a slightly detached mother, a passive father contrast with the confident gentle gesture of a stranger, washing your feverish face and vomiting from the floor. Love begins with acceptance.
To understand the development of the film down to the last shots, you need to remember yourself as a child. Many childhood impressions remain in the memory for life and have a special power. We remember first friends, love, or the first serious punishment of our parents, not because they were outstanding objectively, but because they were the first such emotional revelation. It seems that this was understood by Hannah Schmitz, who, frowning her eyebrows, carefully nodded at the confused and frightened question “Do you love me?”, not finding the strength or right to destroy the world she had inadvertently filled with herself. She also seemed to understand that there was objectively nothing outstanding about her: she was just that first emotional revelation. And he wasn't.
Heroes are in different emotional and intellectual planes: Michael stumbles on his pants, taking them off on the doorstep, and Hannah stumbles on the letters, unable to understand them.
His love is a mixture of incestuous attachment, gratitude and youthful spermotoxicosis. A child’s love is sincere, trusting, and limited: he carries himself like a gift with a big, lush bow – it’s more than he can do in the moment – the most beautiful thing he can do.
The church scene had a special power for me: a mixed sense of emotional closeness and even greater mental distance. Feeling her growing irrelevance and routine of gratitude, Hannah Schmitz disappears at once.
Fate confronts the heroes again at the trial, where Hannah is accused of cooperation with the SS, and Michael Berg is present in the framework of student practices. Law or morality, respect for others' shame or truth? I do not see the possibility of finding “truths” in Nazism, Auschwitz, nor do I see any sense in talking about the responsibility of one individual, although this is the essence of the matter. At the trial all the time it seemed that Hannah did not understand what it was about: she did not kill anyone, but just pointed the finger at other people. There is neither good nor evil in their permanence, they exist in the moment, sometimes simultaneously. War is terrible because you do not feel personal responsibility, there is only a collective, very blurred, some distant calming “they”, “we”, but not “I”.
" Did you not realize that you were sending these women to death?
Yes, of course, but all the time there were new women, the old had to make room.
The amazing paradox of this dialogue is that, as absurd as Hannah Schmitz may sound, she is acting within the framework of the law, an order that is relevant at the time. Therefore, the power of the “law” is very conditional in the space of time. Maybe that’s between “law and morality.” Michael Berg chooses morality - respect for other people's secrets and shame and, interestingly, his actions lead to the fact that Hannah Schmitz becomes not "one of" in this case, but is personally responsible for the death of other people.
The half-open mouth of a classmate who looks exhilarating, but is so in itself, without an emotional response, an erotic mini-performance without internal connections answered my question, Why Michael Berg reads books by Hannah Schmitz in prison. I didn’t see any social subtext here, it seemed like it was just a continuation of that line of gratitude, emotional connection and a strong childhood impression that survived for a lifetime. The lack of answers to letters, the physical hostility in a personal meeting confirms my hunch that Hannah Schmitz was beautiful as a kind of image from her youth that Hannah herself was able to destroy.
The film is interesting in that it poses a wide range of questions from military to personal, and instead of answers offers a devoid of obvious clichés of life.
The wacky lawyer of German nationality, whose role in this film was perfectly performed by Voldemort, with the grace of the grandmaster chess game proves that the age of mind does not add. Being a silent participant in an idiotic situation, he lives his whole life as if he had at least one more in store. And with this Christian cruelty, he refers not only to himself, but also to his girlfriend, whom he shrugged in his youth. She is played by Rose of the Titanic and her nipples were much more attractive in that film. I never thought they would change so much over time. It was suggested that Rosa had three children and that it had a negative impact on their shape. Well, another argument in favor of childfree.
In principle, the film touches on serious issues of the military and post-war generation. The criminal people who today teach me how to live rightly, who murdered 22 million of my fellow citizens, are judging an illiterate blonde woman, accusing her of the crimes of the whole nation, with the appearance that everyone present participated in the capture of the Reichstag on the side of the Red Army (and they did not participate). It is funny that Rosa does not care at all about how much she drank Jews (by the way, yes, except for Jews, judging by this film, nobody was hurt by Hitler’s European Union), she is embarrassed that everyone will find out that she can’t read (how she managed to do it, interesting). No, of course, she deserves punishment, but in addition to a hypocritical society, a shitty historical situation, she also met a young idiot on her life path who could have excused her, but did not. Why? Hell knows, it seems he really believes that this secret, these five minutes of shame, weighs more than a life sentence.
Well, people are different, but I've never met an idiot of this magnitude before. The film is worth watching, especially the first third, a lot of beautifully shot vanilla scenes, you will also definitely want to climb into the bathroom with someone or at least read some nonsense for the night.
6 out of 10
Due to the lack of dynamics, the film is quite difficult to watch, but it should be so, because the plot tells about the life situation, affects the dramas of past years, and the everyday life of a person is not always filled with high-profile events or similar to action. The picture sets out the subtleties of human nature, human feelings, emotions and actions. Heroes are ambivalent and I like that, they are not good or bad, they are just stupid people who made the wrong decisions and then regretted what they did. People who craved to be loved or regretted, cared for or found an object to care for themselves. People with their weaknesses, their conscience and their shame.
We often go back to the past, if our present does not suit us, these memories hang on us like weights. How often do we realize that in many ways we were mistaken, that we were wrong, but nothing can change. Sometimes mistakes lead to over-global repayments and regrets. The causes of imperfect actions can be different: some make one way or another to act the circumstances around, some hopelessness of the situation, some fear or softness. In the future, we realize that we could have done otherwise... nobler, but who are we? We are just people and each of us is not without sin, but only the sins of some carry too serious consequences and sometimes affect someone’s life.
Everyone can judge, but not everyone is ready to answer for their actions.
Although on the technical side I was satisfied – I don’t know what would have happened to this film without Kate Winslet, for her performance, I add another 1 point, she is definitely the rose of this film.
9 out of 10
The movie "Reader" is a very good movie. There are a lot of questions, and some of them won’t be answered immediately. Is it possible to accept that Hannah's service in the Nazi camp is a job and only a job? Can a woman’s illiteracy justify choosing such a job? Is the verdict of the court fair, when one Hannah (well, practically so) must answer not only for her crimes, but also for the crimes of other guards?
What is one word for the interaction of Michael and Hannah: affection, love, challenge, the meeting of two loneliness? And what is more valuable for this woman: love meetings or reading?
Can the original tin jar left by a Jewish woman be considered absolution for Hannah? In a sense?
I do not leave the thought of the crippled soul of Michael.
I do not leave thoughts of people tortured in death camps.
The monstrous crimes of the Nazis have no statute of limitations. Absolutely! Yeah.
What kind of courage did the director need to have in order to convey to us through the drama of a lawyer and an SS guard that it is impossible sometimes in this world to glue someone a monochrome label. Especially when it comes to personal tragedies.
The director took on incredibly risky material.
Add what? Actors Kate Winslet, Rafe Fiennes, David Cross are beautiful – there is a real culture of the game.
I wrote these lines without getting up.
This film is the only one of its kind. Outstanding, in my opinion.