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.
It is not very clear what the author meant by this or reading books is useless.
This film leads to a strange conclusion – it seems that reading a large amount of high-quality literature, a lot of which tells about good and evil, may not affect the inner world of a person. These beautiful books will not make the Nazi camp warden begin to reflect on what she did. The will of a box of money for a survivor of Auschwitz can hardly be considered a serious catharsis of the warden. Or maybe the authors wanted to talk about any other psychological nuances and moral questions? If so, it was unconvincing.
For example, the question remained unanswered what was in the mind of this beautiful woman, calmly went to work for the Nazis and pouring tears of tenderness, looking at children singing in the church. And what was in the head (or in another zone) of a man forever attached to a non-repentant Nazi. The squirming music, the tearful gray eyes of the protagonist - so what should make us, too, pinch our hearts - from empathy to their lyrical line? Or the thought of the seven million victims of the Holocaust?
I love this movie. I fell in love with him, I think, before I even started watching. Because when I found out that Kate Winslet was playing Hannah, I knew that everything in this movie would be “as it should be.”
I don’t want to rewrite the film and compare it to a book. Let me just say that the film fits the story and the spirit of the book. I relive moments in a small apartment, in a tram car, a summer trip by bicycle, in a courtroom.
The plot begins with an unexpected, forbidden connection, which is nevertheless shown very tender, adult, and even sweet, and then unexpectedly reveals the past of the main character, which is associated with the darkest chapter of German history. The hero grows up and before him there are completely unchildish problems and questions, the answer to which is not so easy to find.
Hannah is shown exactly as I imagined her. Strict, proud, vulnerable, feminine, confident, lost. When I saw her performed by Kate, I realized that this is what Hannah drew my imagination while reading.
And David Cross and Rafe Fiennes were great for the role of Michael Berg. The naive face of David perfectly conveyed the lostness and delight of a fifteen-year-old boy, and Fiennes was well suited to the role of an adult man who experienced a lot, sad, thinking a lot about the past.
The main discussion for many remains the act of Michael, when he knew the secret of Hannah, and did not tell about it. “What would you do?” is the question Hannah asks the judge, but it can be attributed to the reader. Knowing a secret that could change the fate of another person, would you dare to reveal it? Do we have the right to do so when man himself does not want it, even under the threat of punishment? Is it a service or an unwanted interference in the affairs of others? An interesting question that hardly has a simple and, most importantly, unambiguous answer.
I don't blame Michael. It's his decision to uphold Hannah's secret. It's Hannah's conscious choice. I don’t think Hannah had no choice back then, she was just running about her secret without trying to solve anything and paying for it, even if it was much harder than she deserved. But it was this punishment that allowed her to face her fear and start working on herself.
Michael became a hostage of his past, a hostage to the image of the first woman in his life and a hostage to his decision. As a result, when his past reminds of himself, he goes headlong into it, recording books on a recorder and sending them to Hannah, while ignoring her requests to write to her.
The story ended unexpectedly, but at the same time I can’t imagine the end better.
It's hard to add anything else when you don't know what to complain about. Watch this movie, but read the book first.
Well, do, the peculiarity of a person - he wants to give a definition of everything, to build a picture that is understandable to himself. The mind tries to simplify what it sees, whether it is events, characters or their actions. It is much easier for him to define phenomena as positive or negative, good-evil, good-bad.
However, with the movie “Reader” is not so simple. Throughout the viewing, there is a feeling when you can not understand – where the truth is, who is right and, most importantly, what you would do if you were in a similar situation. Involuntarily think, try on a difficult fate to be born in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Who are the main characters?
Michael Berg is an exceptionally good reception of the presentation of the main character by the faces of two actors. Thus, the metamorphoses that occurred with his personality during his life are even more emphasized.
Existence is divided into before and after judgment and awareness. The confused young man, falling in love, discovering a subtle, artistic nature in the person of David Cross, is opposed to the aging egoist, in the person of Rafe Fiennes, alarmed, sometimes dull, hiding in the soul the secrets that torment him. And only the trembling impulse of the “baby”, like a ray of hope, he realized his guilt, forgiven the pain caused to him, is ready to open himself to feelings, but no. It's just a temporary impulse.
After a decade of separation before us offended, abandoned in his youth, a man who does not want to understand the tragic fate of the former warden, the motives of her actions, to see remorse in the eyes and justify, his spiritual impulses disappear at her touch. The real insight comes much later, but... agree, it is easy to forgive and understand a person when he is no longer alive.
Hannah Schmitz. In contrast to the beloved, Hannah at different periods is represented by the same actress - Kate Winslet. Yes, she's getting old, her face is wrinkled, her eyes are dimming. But this same person, to understand the thoughts and actions of which will not work, using the usual system of dual evaluation. Throughout the film, there is a desire to first condemn, then justify, then find an explanation for her actions and so on until her death. Who is she, the victim of circumstances or the executioner who breaks the fate of people around her?
Before the temptation to define something for yourself, to put labels, think, imagine your fate, if it is different than it is now. What would you do if you were in such circumstances? .
Six women locked three hundred Jews in churches and allowed them to burn alive, what do you understand?! (c)
First and foremost. There is a beautiful Kate Winslet in the film, which suggests that the film is definitely not hopeless. In this film, she is Hannah Schmids, a woman with no soul, or rather a scorched soul.
The main character starts an affair with 15-year-old Michael, who falls in love with her without memory and begins to read her books ("The Lady with the Dog, War and Peace, Odyssey). She seems to come alive with the appearance of this boy in her life, he gives her real emotions, joy, new meanings, as if the light illuminates a dark room. Sooner or later, harmony and happiness come to an end. This is certainly the fault of Hannah herself, who is not used to listening and hearing other people, absolutely devoid of empathy. She can't adapt, she's not used to giving. A new twist in her strange life is a new job. Hannah leaves the apartment in an unknown direction. She chooses the path of evil, becoming a guard in a camp for German political prisoners.
I don't feel sorry for Hannah, I feel disgusted. She had a life of a “steppe wolf”, who did nothing good and good, did not really open himself to anyone.
Yes, it's a subtle director's move to make Hannah illiterate (she can neither read nor write). And the heroine is already growing into a symbol. The symbol of fascist Germany, blind, stupid, talentless, burning books, destroying everything around.
The thought is as simple as all genius.
Thanks to the director. Very mixed impressions. Such films should be...
The story of a “little”, submissive fate, a steadfast man in the hands of ruthless history.
What the director wanted to do, I understand. But only because “not clear” cannot be. Everything else, that is, everything in the film, is imbalanced.
If you take only a superficial impression, then after watching there is hatred of Jews.
If you dig deeper, everything is like in life: the versatility and ambiguity of the division only into black and white. The vile ones remain vile until the end and usually come out clean from the water. The victims, in this case, safely become avenged, rich and almost holy. And he who tells the truth gets the most slaps of fate.
- She! She! She! And she! a concentration camp survivor points a finger.
It's a very rude behavior for a well-educated person, isn't it? By the end of the film, this same survivor will show another tactlessness in her question to Michael. And the way she brags about the fact that she's a victim always disgusts me. And the thirst for revenge makes in the person of this woman a new “executioner”, which ultimately leads to doubts about the randomness of their salvation (read between the lines).
There's another coward in the picture. Yeah, yeah, I think Michael's a coward. And his silence in court, which could save Hannah from trouble, and his romantic story with books in prison and how in the end advises Hannah to do everything “quietly”.
The only one with the face of the saint here is Hannah. She does not lose her dignity even under the fear of severe punishment. Footage in court with finding out the coincidence of her handwriting, show the pride of the heroine. And that's pride. Not proud. And remorse.
Trying to avoid punishment or reduce it by humiliating yourself for doing terrible things is not for Hannah. She accepts her crucifixion. She's repenting.
At the end of the film, the director tries to give the impression that the victim girl forgives Hannah, but there is no catharsis. Only hatred. Hatred of the concentration camp victims themselves. Hatred of the so-called lover. Hatred of those who came dry from the water.
It seems that it was Hannah that the director paid the most attention. Perhaps he did not want to put all the other actors, key persons in a bad light, but it happened, even if by chance (all accidents are not accidental).
I’ve been postponing this movie for a year. Then I couldn’t stand it and looked. The view was in parts, apparently not as much interested as I thought.
I really liked the way the characters were selected.
The story as a whole is interesting and peculiar, but knowing that this relationship of an adult woman and a teenager (by history) repulsed for some reason, maybe this is some foundations or principles that spoke to me. But at the very end, when the main character visited his beloved in prison, all the foundations dissolved. Maybe because makeup is imposed professionally and the actress so much got used to the role.
I also heard that there is a book, but at the moment I am sure that I would not like to read the book. This is the case where the film showed me the whole story and you need some written proof of the story.
I really liked the main actor, an eighteen-year-old guy who looked so perfect for both 15 and 18. I am sure that the very talented actor and their tandem with Kate in general was very good. I think in this movie, Kate pretty well brought his talent to the surface, which we all saw. I’m going to watch a couple more movies with him. I hope you don't disappoint.
I'll bet the film 6 out of 10 for an interesting story and actors. It was wonderful, the rest is a little worse, but still the film deserves its high marks.
P.S. Kate Winslet got rid of the stigma of the actress from the Titanic.
I saw a film about retro-decoration and an unsuccessful attempt to change concepts.
I don’t understand why Katya won the Oscar, probably that year the other actresses looked even worse. I would give an Oscar to the decorator, the interiors are designed for 5*. In general, all the little things are very well worked out, even the hairy armpits of the heroine, five layers of paint with leaks on wooden windows, peeled walls and falling off plaster from Eurofacades, wallpaper glued to the upper level of the window frame in the further white piece of wall and ceiling ... just like my great-grandmother ... If this movie had been made in 1956, I would have said it was a great retro-interior book. That’s all I really liked... Oh, yeah, she has a cool studio apartment, in one volume and bedroom and kitchen and bath. Moydodyr, however, is not in the bedroom, but rather by the kitchen, but the layout is ergonomic. By the way, I did not see the toilet in the frame.
The mission of the film is to implant in the subconscious the fashionable European tendency to see the good in the bad. I would say that a very successful combination of the state order to cultivate tolerance among the population and the commercial success of housewives.
I didn’t see a lot of love in the film, some kind of love is unfinished. The tragedy is, yes, it is, and it’s kind of weak. Retribution - yes, just retribution, commutation of sentence - yes. A lot of injustice with accomplices in the court - yes, how in Europe without injustice - set up your neighbor. I don't understand why she didn't admit that she wasn't literate - stupid and not logical at all. And he had to tell the court that she is not literate - it is his duty as a citizen to mitigate the punishment of an innocent (well, or not so guilty) citizen - this is really a joint of both a lawyer and a citizen and a person. Perhaps masculinity came out of it at 15 instead of ejaculation. It is not clear why he sent her tapes, probably the effect of compensation and atonement for his guilt (his cowardice). That's bullshit.
By the way, the candid scenes were shot at the very end of filming when the actor officially turned 18. Maybe the kid should have practiced before filming.
By the way, instead of Katya in the lead role could star Nikolai Childman from Honolulu, but from Keith City Kolka pregnant with Sunday Rose Childman City and refused to shoot. Nicole would have played better than Katka. But it would be better if the role was given to the Frenchwoman Juliet Binoche, unlucky for her and the film, Julia Ivanovna, as a true Parisian, exactly better lived the bed scenes and created a unique romantic image for the joy of women's tears, and so it turned out dry SS and no romance, one ordung.
A few words about how Katya can not play love. No wonder, life is like this: Katyushka Winning a leg at the age of 16, burrowed with Stephen Tredrome, but did not ring like an experienced madame, and at 20 she parted with him, and two years later Tredr died of bone cancer (could suffer with him a couple of years before the death of her lover, but no, threw a terminally ill). Then Katyushka impregnated Mia Jdim Trippleton and was in it for three years, then Sam Mendes struck her son Joe, but Sam could not stand it and dumped (probably saw on TV thickets in the armpits and inelegant sex with a well-read young man, probably jealous old man to the youth, tea half a dime to uncle and not a spot). And now Katerinka is danced by millionaire Ned Rocknroll (musical surname), but their son Bear Winner is not Rock 'n' Roll. Katya does not know how to love on the screen, there are no feelings, I do not believe, and Tredra left alone with cancer, 300 Jews burned according to the script, and 10 people a month to die - no problem, and she did not like a reader, just used as a substitute for a TV with sex. She didn’t sacrifice anything for him, left and said goodbye.
I don’t understand why Oscar... but if you look in retrospect: in titanic Katerina showed once – another mammary gland, drowned Dicaprio, but this was not enough for Oscar.. and here is a prudent vegetarian forty years old from birth to bare breast, which no longer sticks out like teenagers, adds hairy armpits, multiple cases with fifteen-year-old eighteen, burns three hundred Jews in the church and every month sends a dozen women to certain death.. Oscar.. trend, however..
It would be interesting to hear about the film of the elderly. .
Yes, I almost forgot, during the filming of the film, two producers died before the end. It's just a mess, death without end.
And the end without death: why did he bring his daughter to the cemetery? I don't believe that a fifty-year-old European introvert would bring his daughter to the cemetery to tell this story over the grave in the cold. I don’t believe the movie at all.
Granny: Budget: 32 million Washingtons, gross: 109 million
How much should the ticket cost: 10 rubles (8 rubles for enjoying retro-decoration, 1 ruble for the hairy armpits of Katka Winslet on TV, 50 kopecks for a philosophical thought about the mystery of the condemned, 40 kopecks for the suicide of the SS warden, 6 kopecks for the fact that the Jewish woman did not forgive the German warden, 5 kopecks for reminding that the system and circumstances in quotation marks cripple fate, one penny for the lamely played bed scenes, and the lack of success of the creative group).
Unfortunately, the book could not be read before viewing, so there was a lot of understatement. However, this film has not lost its charm.
Initial events suggest that this is a film about the love of an adult woman and a teenage boy. Therefore, I immediately had a whole story in my head that most likely, in the end, the guy will fall in love with his age and we will be shown the suffering of the main character - Hannah. But, no! It's not that simple. Somewhere in the middle, the film begins to take an intriguing turn and thus has a philosophical overtones. What makes this movie so interesting?
“The Reader” turned out to be more of a film about shame, betrayal, and forgiveness than about love. It was easier for Hannah to go to prison for life than to admit that she was illiterate and could never read or write, and thus could not write a report. It was much easier for her to ruin the rest of her days with her head held high than to admit, in her opinion, to utter shame. And her so-called colleagues, who were also involved in the case, rushed to take advantage of the situation and save their skins, accusing her of leadership. Regarding Michael, I have ambivalent feelings. Do we have the right to accuse him of cowardice when this woman broke his heart? From my point of view, he did not act quite noblely, or rather quite ignoble. However, I never understood what guided him more and what he was more worried about: for himself and the shame that would fall on his head for his connection with the woman involved in the death of people in the concentration camp or for her, so to speak, honor? Also, can we condemn a girl who wrote a book about Nazi atrocities and is unwilling to forgive her former warden? And a good question was asked by one of the students that there were thousands of such camps all over Europe, and why were these women being tried? Just because an ex-prisoner wrote a book and included their names? I can't find the answers to these questions, they may not exist. No one will ever be able to answer who is right in this situation and who is to blame.
The acting was flawless. There is not much to say about the winner of the Oscar, because you experience only admiration. I tried to recognize in this battered life Hannah, the world famous Kate Winslet and failed to do so. More than a deserved victory, Kate's bravo! Also surprised by a young actor, hitherto unknown to me, named David Cross. Depicting a boy in love doubting himself, he managed to convey the desired image. The only claim was that Rafe Fiennes and David Cross had absolutely nothing in common in appearance. But, Rafe was also, as usual, great, although he kept aloof throughout the film. All three conveyed the feelings they experienced without any words or explanations, but only through a piercing glance.
The movie "Reader" evokes some sadness and encourages reflection. The magnificent melody that plays throughout the film further increases the dreary mood. Not even managed to turn off the film immediately after the credits appeared, but listened to the soundtrack until the very end. With a light heart, you can recommend this movie to watch.
A lot has been said about this film. I would like to note the impeccable play of the cast, competent camera work and thoughtfulness of the dramatic storyline.
The feelings of the heroes are exposed in the literal and figurative sense and appear before the viewer in the form in which they are.
It is amazing how amazingly conveys the torment and experiences of the hero young David Cross, Kate Winslet is also on top.
The film touches on very acute themes of cinema: Nazism, the Holocaust, the postwar years in Germany, and, of course, love. It is around first passion, then attachment and then emotional torment that the action unfolds.
I did not know about the awards and recognition of this picture, of course, all this is deserved! I recommend it!
I'm not scared. I'm not afraid of anything. The more I suffer, the more I love. Danger only increased my love. Danger made her feel better, gave her taste. I'll be your only lover. You will live a more beautiful life than you live now. Heaven will take you when they see you. And they will say that only one thing will help to feel the fullness of life. And that's love.
At one time, this film led me to the faculty, which I did not even think about. Law. Now this is my life, now this is my everything.
I am immensely grateful to this picture that it awakens so many emotions, so many inner sensations of this life. Not everyone can get so deep, into the soul of a person, into his heart, but many try. Playing actors at the highest level. Perhaps the best assessment of their work will be the phrase: I believed it. I immersed myself in their history, and I became interested in military affairs and the stories of survivors in death camps. The woman is right, the camp is not a school, there is nothing good there.
The story of a lifelong shame and broken heart of a young boy. We leave a mark in the life of everyone we know and sometimes do not realize the importance of this “touch”, we go through life with uneven steps, afraid of the future because of scars, which in new feelings, like in salt water scratches, begin to hurt even more. To keep a secret in the most, unfortunately, not moral profession. For the concept of morality is vague and subjective, and the law tries to give it an objective form.
We are trying to understand the most important phrase of the film. And Michael got it. It may seem that he just chickened out, scared to meet the one who ran away from him and left alone with his feelings. But personally, I think it was because of his love for Hannah that he didn't reveal her secret. He trusted her choice and stepped back. Not forgetting, like a devoted dog, as if he had shared this period with her. After all, what a life when you have no one to share with, no one to open up and absolutely impossible to feel anything, because all the light of his love is directed to the one whose life no longer belongs to freedom.
I love the book. I love the movie. I love this story.
“Today you will read to me first, and then we will make love.”
It is raining outside, a little boy walks home after school, feeling that he became sick and cold, entering one of the entrances, a woman saw a boy and helps him warm up.
She did not know how old he was, what his name was, and did not even suspect that she could become the love of his life. Only the viewer of the film knew that the woman was 37, and the boy was only 15, and only after the third meeting, which ended always the same — or rather sex — they met.
Recently I started reading books and the fourth book I started reading was The Reader. I couldn’t stop reading because the story was terrible, but it was interesting. I advise everyone to read, because in the film many emotional moments are missed.
The day after I read it, I started watching the movie and I just liked it. I cried at reading, heart and soul rooted for the main character, but when watching the film I could not feel such a feeling, because everything happened lightning fast, there was a feeling that from each chapter chose three, maybe five, maybe seven most memorable moments.
Of course, it is impossible to shoot everything exactly from the book, but even in the scene of the sale of markers, you could add a dialogue between the seller and Michael – the viewer did not feel who paid on the trip, the viewer did not notice how cheap he sold them, the viewer did not see that he quarreled with his mother to go with his beloved Hannah.
I loved the movie, especially the actress, Kate Winslet. You can see how she got used to the role, because she made love to an 18-year-old boy, although the book and the film the main character was 15. Make-up artists worked well, for each wrinkle of the heroine, you could understand how much time passed on the change of each episode. David Cross is talented, if you read some facts about the film you can see that he did not know English, he learned the language when the film was shot. Rafe Fiennes as always professionally accurately conveyed the image of the main character. Well, a low bow to the director of the film Stephen Daldry, excellent work, everything that I imagined when reading the novel I saw exactly exactly at once, but the writers missed some of my favorite moments, because of this I can not appreciate their work so highly.
P.S. Read the books...
This is a very harmful film, although very beautiful. I will explain why I think so now.
There is such a thing as the Overton Window. Wikipedia explains this theory very extensively, but if you compress it, it turns out that the Overton Window is an assessment of the acceptability for society of any ideas, divided into such criteria as: unthinkable; radical; acceptable; reasonable; popular; mandatory. For those interested in details, please look at the same Wikipedia or other official sources.
Mass culture is nothing but a lever of control over these masses. Entertainment is not the goal. The goal is to educate. And to educate as it is necessary to those in power at a certain point in time. In the USSR it was necessary to instill in every citizen the idea of communist ideology. Naturally, cinema, as Lenin bequeathed, was in the first place in importance – easy and accessible. The goals have changed.
Bernhard Schlink’s “Reader,” however banal, interested me, an avid bibliophile, in his name. The novel put on the queue to read, and before that decided to watch the film adaptation (sometimes I do wrong). What did I see behind this beautiful picture? A call for sympathy. And who? To the former essay, which became finally on the path of open pedophilia! And it's not about bigotry. There is a concept of public morality and morality that cannot be confused with Pharisaism. If only twenty years ago such a film would have been condemned for just one idea, today it is given awards and promoted. That is, the Overton Window has moved very far, from the mark unthinkably straight to the mark is popular. That is, sympathy for fascism and pedophilia may become mandatory for our society tomorrow.
Unfortunately, this film is not one of its kind. There are a lot of them, they are given awards, advertised, shown in cinemas. The process is underway.
Everyone decides how to treat such phenomena, and not only in cinema. But do not forget the famous words of V. I. Lenin that in art for us the main thing is cinema.
7 out of 10
The film was recommended to me by friends, so I had to watch a long, thoughtful and wait for the outcome. She wasn't there. If this film came to me by chance, I would turn it off in the tenth minute, because the plot is not catchy at all. For the first 50 minutes, the viewer observes the same bed scenes, in which only the lines of the books read change, during this time there is one sluggish and pretentious hysteria of Anna because of nonsense, unusual for a forty-year-old mature woman, as well as a couple of short episodes showing the difficult relationship of the hero Mahal with the family. So in the 50th minute, I caught myself thinking, ' Well, when will the movie start?' I must say that the film began, but the plot went completely in the wrong direction in which I expected. According to the number of love scenes, it was assumed that the film would be about love, relationships and something sublime, but the plot included too serious themes of the Holocaust, torture and Nazis, which had absolutely no place after such long and hot scenes.
As for the theme of the film itself. I read an interview book by a German guard. He was asked questions, trying to understand how people could be capable of such monstrous things, because this is not an isolated case. To this day, thousands of soldiers, torn from ordinary life, far from their relatives, loved ones, their families and children, go to war, after which the stories of torture are repeated regardless of country, nation or religion. So, according to the author, it is simply impossible to understand the psychology of all these people, sitting in the cinema and chewing popcorn. He said, “Pray to God that this fate will pass you, because you can only understand it when you find yourself in their skin.” That’s why I don’t try to judge Anna Schmitz or justify her, I try to avoid thinking about it. I can only thank fate that I did not happen to be in her place and not face the choice she faced. We are all human, with our own thoughts and feelings, we are all weak and think to the best of our ability, we all have different circumstances. None of the overseers was a great philosopher to find the right answer to the question: ': “Is I doing the right thing and what should I have done?” They all had to feed their families and do what was required of them. We are not taught to live and do the right thing, we can only learn from the mistakes of the past, our own or others. We may not be able to learn.
And in any case, this topic is too deep to try to understand it through a long, but still Hollywood movie. The task of Hollywood is not to force people to think and make decisions, not to try to understand deep issues, the task of Hollywood - ' cut lavender & #39; So that tickets are sold so that the most primitive viewer (of whom most) understands what is happening on the screen. Here's a love story - aha, here's a Nazi - of course, look further - torment, torment, remorse - clearly. All combed and slicked. We bought a ticket, wept, we were satisfied.
Another fact worthy of attention is how carefully Hollywood managed to avoid a slippery topic. They masterfully did not hang labels, so, they say, white is white, and black is black and left the viewer an open question: '. Which makes sense. If they had forgiven her, it would have angered the victims of the Holocaust, their relatives and moral investigators; if she had been punished, the audience would have been dissatisfied. After all, they came to the drama, to cry, to empathize with the hero, and not to observe the history of revenge after the Great Tragedy. So they made of her a great martyr, a refined person, capable of loving and suffering, loving books and experiencing a sense of shame.
Speaking of which. At the moment in court, I just wanted to laugh in my voice. The woman confessed to all the most terrible deeds, composure, murder, sending people to certain death, 300 prisoners burned before her eyes while she could save them, and in some nonsense, like inability to read, she was ashamed. What a beauty. It is better to have her executed, but to confess that she is illiterate, God forbid. Hollywood is like Hollywood.
The actors’ makeup leaves much to be desired. When Anna and Michael last met, she was about 60 years old. But her face looked as if she had been dipped in a cake or sprinkled with flour. Usually at this age, and even taking into account the conditions, significant changes occur with the face in the form of sagging muscles of the face, neck, skin and changes in the oval of the face. On the face of Anna appeared only one glued wrinkle and a couple of pigment spots. In general, she remained still hot and in fact nothing prevented the two lovers from continuing their relationship. But Michael suddenly remembered that he was already an elderly woman, and besides a Nazi, so he disdainfully pulled his hand away from her, and dryly told her about his participation (or rather about non-participation) in her future fate.
I'm sorry about the time I wasted, because the subject is too deep to touch with glossy Hollywood fingers. A love story is also something of a fantasy. Too implausible and sweet, at the same time too primitive and predictable. Most people liked it, which is good. If movies were made for thinking audiences, cinemas would be empty.
There is a category of films that we, usually guided by all sorts of recommendations, laudatory descriptions and ratings, obviously rank among the so-called “high-art”. And if before viewing it is difficult to draw a line between an objective assessment and a subjective attitude, then a thoughtful session usually puts everything in its place. So for several years I looked at the film adaptation of Bernhard Schlink's novel , anticipating to correlate absentee assumptions and quite obvious emotions. “Reader” not only met my expectations, but left in its own indelible impression, as a mature, endowed with style, artwork.
This is not a film for a wide audience in the most banal sense. And I mean, I don't think it's a favorite debate for some people about who understands what and who doesn't -- who has a deeper perception and who has a limited perception. There is nothing exemplary about belittling the merits of other people - just "Reader" will probably be perceived differently depending on gender, age and film preferences. This is not a beautiful romantic story that always gives a good mood and inspiration. This is a thoughtful drama with a rather viscous atmosphere of presence, aimed at several unpopular topics at once, such as incontact and social isolation, child molestation, death camps and the Holocaust.
Are there any women with you long enough to know what's going on in your head?
Connoisseurs of interesting and unusual stories should be satisfied. The very concept that is the basis of the film, after a quarter of an hour absorbs irrevocably, in a pleasant artistic way, leading the viewer away from the stereotypes inherent in most melodramas. The relationship between the two main characters is difficult to fit into any specific framework, as well as simply unambiguously describe and even describe in words. Even not new scenes of jealousy partner to younger played with his, understandable only after the final credits, subtext. I urge you to stop watching trailers and reading all sorts of discussions, so as not to spoil the natural development and perception of the story of the two main characters.
It is felt that the project was carefully created with the active participation of the German side, which gained a distinct atmosphere of European cinema. Add to that the relevant supporting cast, filming locations and Schlink's literary original. Postwar Germany is handed over with a sobering atmosphere of a new time for the country, in inhospitable dull tones. Even the first scenes, where the hero of David Cross is exhausted from nausea, visually assimilated with the colorless surroundings of Neustadt. There are no violent scenes of action in the film - mostly dialogue, monologues and silent contemplation. At the same time, what you see is perceived with genuine interest, and even long clumsy plans give their zest.
You are too weak to upset me. You don't mean so much to upset me.
Dramatic stories of this format, especially those based on a literary work, are demanding of the main roles, of which there are three. The title male image is transmitted in the context of decades by two actors and it is difficult to remain indifferent, both to the play of young David Cross and to the benefit of the well-deserved Rafe Fiennes. Of course, even if you wish, it is difficult to ignore the game "Kate Winslet", which, as it seemed to me, gave out one of its most powerful roles and was deservedly nominated for a number of prestigious film awards, including Oscars. The Reader is an enviable example of the harmony of the story told and the images with which it should be associated.
Imagine if you met someone. A true love is born between you. You often spend time with each other, communicate, share thoughts and secrets. But all of a sudden you find out that this man was hiding such a terrible secret from you that you could not have imagined that the person you loved all this time was pretending to be someone you were not. Could you forgive this man, talk to him again? Can you love him with the same love? This theme formed the basis of the psychological drama “Reader”.
Synopsis Germany, 1995. Michael Berg, a lawyer, deals with various cases day by day, indulging in memories from his past. Once upon a time he met a mysterious German Hannah, who was twice his age and with whom Michael fell in love. Heroes became lovers. But one day Hannah just disappeared, and a few years later Michael learned that all this time Hannah was hiding a terrible secret, so terrible that now he had to decide whether he was on the side of love or on the side of justice.
Game of actors Overall, I really liked the cast of the film. Impressed by the young David Cross, who managed to successfully convey the image of first a 15-year-old teenager who is just beginning to truly learn life, and then the image of a 23-year-old boy who stands at the crossroads between feelings and reason. I also liked the secondary role of Bruno Gantz, who became a mentor for Michael in his future profession. But, of course, the real star was Kate Winslet, who played the role of Hannah Schmitz, an illiterate German woman who is so ashamed of it that she is ready to sacrifice her freedom and honor for the sake of preserving the secret.
Directorship I really liked Steven Daldry’s work when I saw his film The Clock. The director uniquely manages to study a woman, because in the “Reader”, as in “The Clock”, the fate of a woman is in the center of attention. The director also successfully conveyed the importance of a number of problems that arise in the course of the development of the plot in the film. First, the problem of love between people of different ages. I really liked the fact that the director didn’t throw it away. In the “Reader”, this theme, combined with frank eroticism, looked beautiful and natural. It was clear that there were real feelings between the characters. The film also focuses on the Holocaust. I will not explain anything here, because everything is clear. Finally, everything ends with the emotional throwing of the main character. The only drawback of the film, and I think a director like Stephen Dolgry could have influenced it, is English in Germany. The director could at least make sure that the writing in the film was in German. The film is Americanized.
Scenario The plot of the film develops nonlinearly, as the main action develops in our time, but often refers to the past. In the beginning, we see Ralph Fiennes as the eternally sad Michael, and then we find out where his sadness began. And this sadness began with a beautiful love, born after an unexpected meeting of 15-year-old Michael and conductor from the tram Hannah in Germany in 1958. The plot of the film also addresses the topic of life in the post-war Federal Republic of Germany. But one day Hannah disappears and the action is moved to 1966. Michael, as a law student, attends open court hearings where Nazi criminals are tried. To Michael’s dismay, Hannah, who is missing, turns out to be a warden in one of the many Death Camps. The hero understands why Hannah has been so withdrawn all the time, and also understands why she always asked him to read for her - Hannah is illiterate, which is wildly shameful. This may mitigate her sentence, but Michael faces a choice. Give in to old feelings to save a loved one? Or submit to reason to allow justice to prevail. The plot of the film is interesting. The hero perfectly understands that the crime of Hannah can never be justified, but love and warm memories can not leave the hero alone. However, a fateful decision has been made, and it will forever change the lives of both Hannah and Michael.
Result Overall, the film made a positive impression on me. I liked what issues and themes were raised in the film, how the director and writers presented them. The only thing that bothered me was the sheer English language and no respect for the German language. This movie is worth watching.
The film examines the love story of Michael Berg (David Cross) and Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet). When Michael was 15 years old, on the way from school suddenly fell ill with jaundice, and the only person who offers him help and brings him home, is 36-year-old tram conductor Hannah Schmitz, in which he actually falls in love, which changes his life in a cardinal way.
A very extraordinary movie with a great love line, which reveals the characters of Michael and Hannah. This is a heartbreaking film about true love, in which there are no boundaries.
Kate Winslet made a great contribution to the picture with her play, the ability to transform into another image, completely new for her and the audience. Kate Winslet showed an exemplary game, playing Hannah Schmitz. She showed Hannah bossy, strict, but at the same time soft towards Michael.
David Cross did his best to make the viewer believe his story, his suffering and his feelings. He managed to play a young, hot teenager who sincerely fell in love with a woman conductor. He did not care for his age, he loved her with real adult love, which David managed to show.
Rife Fiennes played the adult introverted Michael. Michael thinks about what happened and remembers the beautiful moments of his life that Hannah was in. Rife played well and caused emotions.
The duo of actors who played Michael in different time periods tried to reveal him enough that we believed in the story of Michael, in his feelings for Hannah throughout his life. They showed a great game, showing sincere feelings and emotions.
I read the book I was filming. I read it right after watching the movie, which made the film even more impressive. After reading the book, I realized that the film adaptation was made at a decent level. The creators managed to put all the content and sincerity of the book into the film, without spoiling the impression of either the book or the film.
10 out of 10
I recommend watching this film to admire the good performance of the actors, their heartache and pain. The film makes you immerse yourself in the atmosphere of the closed world of Michael, which is dominated by memories of magnificent love, which he remembers with sadness and sadness.
Feelings are one of the most interesting mysteries in the world. Reason is their main enemy. Combinations of these two opposites can have different reactions: either success or failure. We are often told, “Before you do anything, think with your head.” After listening to this advice, we obey him, think over all actions and do everything according to the planned pattern. Of course, this method is effective, but do not forget about the desires of our heart. It seemed that reason and feelings are incompatible, without their proper interaction it is impossible to get the desired result. What a paradox!
The film The Reader deals with this contradiction. The past of two heroes, Hannah and Michael, weighs and at the same time harbors happy memories. Love, affection, guilt, justice, remorse... All of this saturated this picture. A chance meeting of a teenager and an adult woman turned out to be fateful, leaving a big mark. The relationship between Hannah and Michael is unusual: they make love, sometimes walk outside the city, and Michael constantly reads books at Schmitz’s request. But one day Hannah disappears. As a law student, Michael attends a closed court hearing where he sees Hannah as one of the defendants. During the trial of the crime, the young man realizes that Schmitz is illiterate, but she does not confess in this court. Michael could have reported this fact, but for some incomprehensible reason he does not. Hannah appears to the audience as ruthless, even a robot, soullessly executing someone’s orders. In the years that followed, Michael felt guilty for failing to mitigate the punishment of a woman who not only affected his life, but who never left his heart. As for Hannah herself, she was no less tormented than Michael. Full awareness of the monstrosity of the crime committed, thoughts about Michael and a sense of uselessness pushed the woman to lynching.
"Reader" - a brilliant picture. No matter how much you watch the film, each time you delve deeper into this amazing story. Great game Kate Winslet-the pearl of the picture!
British film director Stephen Daldry announced himself to the world in 2000, when he was 39 years old, releasing the drama “Billy Elliot”, which confidently holds in the Holy of Holies Top 250 KP. Daldry’s debut exceeded all expectations, he was even nominated for an Oscar in the category “Best Director”. Only two years have passed and the new film of Stephen Daldry again attracts the attention of critics: The Clock with a brilliant female cast (Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep!!) again as the main contenders for the highest awards, and Daldry himself for the second time in a row was nominated for an Oscar for best director. I must say that in the case of “The Clock” only Nicole Kidman was able to take the award, all the others bypassed the film. Apparently, Daldry held a grudge against the Oscars, because it was only six years after the premiere of The Watch that he returned to directing. And that was the movie The Reader. What do you think? Daldry is the nominee, and Kate Winslet, who played the main role in this film, takes the cherished statuette... Poor, poor Daldry.
The painting “Reader” is a somewhat slow action lying in two time layers. On one side of the medal we see a young man named Michael Berg (German young actor David Cross), who suddenly meets a woman who is older than him by a decade and a half. The boy himself did not foresee it, but suddenly felt a strong attraction to this woman, whose name is Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet). He finds a reason to return to her small apartment and soon they have a sexual relationship. After they often meet, but gradually their spark fades, their world cracked when Hannah decided to break up with the guy. Should I blame Hannah for seducing a boy? Should I blame him for leaving him? The questions are rather rhetorical, because the movie “Reader” says that every action has its own reason and should be considered before branding someone. Why the Reader? Because during meetings with Hannah, who could not read and write, in the intervals between the communication Michael reads his passion different books, including the classics of our native literature.
Already one time layer leaves questions for the viewer. Humanity or understanding? Hard look or sympathy? Each viewer can, in fact, imbue himself with this story and give himself answers. The director and the screenwriters do not insist on this at all, they tell only the essence of life that confronted a young guy with an adult already a lady. The second time layer translates us into the being of the grown-up Michael. He was married, he has children, but something weighs heavily on his heart. The famous Rafe Fiennes, who has already played an adult Michael, showed how a person can absorb the feeling of guilt for the mistakes of the past. But the fact that he was consumed by guilt is my personal opinion, perhaps someone will decide differently and I can not even say that he will be wrong, everyone reserves a personal opinion about this picture, I repeat, but it is important! Meanwhile, between the layers, in no case should not pass by the most important and most dramatic moment of this film. After Hannah's disappearance, Michael unexpectedly meets her again, but this time in a courtroom where Hannah is tried for her crimes during the Nazi regime. If you haven’t seen the movie, do you hate Hanna? Believe me, fascism and Nazism are alien to me, but will Hannah be to blame for this film? Again: look at the picture “Reader” and make your own conclusions, no one has the right to tell you otherwise.
Playing actors in such a complex, multi-layered drama film is worthy and commendable. To be honest, I can’t rashly prove that the game was brilliant, and Kate Winslet was the most worthy candidate for the Oscar, so I can’t and that’s it! I'll try to explain why. Let me start with Rafe Fiennes. It's a good game, but not as emotional as he showed in the Taste of Sunshine tape, and that's where he turned around. Why the comparison with this painting? Because the genre and the role of Fiennes tapes are very similar. Kate Winslet has long gone on to receive the most prestigious award. She has long been the most decorated actress of her country, almost for every film she already receives a nomination, and then the award itself. This was followed by the fact that she automatically fell into the lists of applicants for the Oscar nomination. But the award was not given, but already after years of service she was awarded it, although Winslet had more solid roles, but this is as in the case of Martin Scorsese, when it would be audacity not to give him an Oscar for The Departed, although his previous tapes could well count on the gratitude of the master from critics. But I can say that Rafe Fiennes and Kate Winslet played at the highest level in the film Reader! David Cross was chosen for good reason, the 18-year-old actor coped with his role and I hope that the experience of participating in such a serious film will give him the opportunity to open up further.
The film is serious, a film that will make you think, think, reason, decide, give yourself answers to questions. The eternal “Who is to blame?” and “What to do?” will be leaders here, but they will receive such a cut that honored philosophers will think hard about whom to judge and whether anyone should be judged at all?! /b>
The film is made professionally, though too Hollywood-like. What about the content...
In artistic terms, only the first part is interesting (about the experiences of a teenager due to a connection with an adult aunt). Then the work dies in spasms of “correctness” and “political correctness”. There is no real basis for this story. They themselves write that of all the German wardens in concentration camps, only one “Mare” (stomping prisoners with her feet) appeared before the court. And how many of them were actually "mares!"
Yeah. Amazing people are these Germans, so disciplined. It was ordered to become Nazis - steel; began to build socialism - built ("assi"); there is an order to condemn Nazism - condemn (good fed). “Reader” is the product of inflamed politically correct consciousness, fantasizing about the struggle with the consequences of Nazism (similar to how our “Sixties” are all at war with “Stalinism”). Fighting these paper dragons, they seem not to notice the evils that multiply and grow around.
A classic example of distraction from the important by some invented problems. Therefore, probably, a weak craft Shlinka and its adaptation and made world bestsellers.
In addition, it is very difficult to imagine in the middle of the twentieth century a German who can not read.
Here it is – “the decline of Europe”: instead of Goethe or at least Thomas Mann some G. Schlink.
Read it.
Sadly, I haven’t read the book yet, and I think it will answer my questions much more than I’ve read them in this movie. Very much lacked information from the actors, as the main characters, what they thought, what they felt when playing experiences and emotional anguish. Particularly upset one of the most important episodes of the film, when there was a trial of the guards. In this story, the unprofessional play of the supporting actors was clearly visible. I had to pull them up, they looked very weak and Kate Winslet was a little implausible here.
In general, I had questions about the acting (except for Rafe Fiennes).
As for the film itself, it asks a lot of questions that it cannot answer. Honestly, my idea of the main character, I was able to make only two short phrases against the background of general events. And they became key to me in shaping the whole image. These are the moments when a man approaches Hannah and talks about a great job and upcoming promotion and the moment when they meet in prison after 22 years in prison, and he asks her what she thought about all this, implying murder of people, and not their love relationship, which she thought about in the first place. After that, I understood (relatively) the motives of her behavior towards the prisoners and the connection with a fifteen-year-old boy.
The theme of the film is very complex, in any case deserves high praise, but personally I lacked the emotional background, integrity and expression of the attitude of the characters to each other and themselves.
And yet, people who read the book saw the movie a little differently than those who hadn’t. And in order to fully find the answers that just crumbled during the viewing, I immediately pulled to read the book to fill in all the gaps.
P.S. I understand that there are no clear answers to all questions. It’s hard to tell yourself what you’d do in a given situation, but what I was most concerned about was what motivated the characters in the film to choose. In fact, each of us would make different choices, and it wouldn’t be the same for everyone.
Society thinks it is governed by something called ethics. But it's not. It is governed by what is called the Law.”
It makes no sense to retell the plot, this movie should be watched, disassembled in pieces and again folded like a puzzle or a mosaic, and only then you can approach the understanding of the leading idea.
The topics raised in the film relate to different aspects of society. Here are arguments about what justice is and who / what determines its criteria, and the denunciation of such personality vices as cowardice and fear of judgment.
Usually in each film there is a hero who sympathizes more than the rest, and most often such a character acts as the protagonist (even if complex, intricate plot moves are first issued as an antagonist). In this hero, we see ourselves or we notice in him qualities that we do not mind acquiring ourselves.
So here you will either despise the main character and find excuses for the hero, or understand the motives of both and imbued with respect for the first.
In view of the fact that I consider myself one of the last, then we will talk about the heroine played by Kate Winslet, in the talent of which there is no doubt. Of course, she was not only aware of her guilt, but also ready to redeem her fully, which she did. After her confession, it becomes clear how and how her life will end. It is at this point that her character is revealed to a greater extent , the director even seems to give us a hint in the face of other wardens , who obviously did not realize the gravity of their guilt and accused her of the sole decision to destroy the wards. And the reason attributed to her actions by her unreasonable lover is absolutely absurd in the light of her real motive.
But he may have saved her from a worse outcome. Let me be clear: imagine for a moment that a boy intervened in court, saying that the convict did not own the letter and could not physically write that report herself. Suppose he, acting as a lawyer, with the help of his wise professor (who, by the way, tried to direct him and other students on the right path, but, as always happens, never reached them), was able to prove that she was only a doer. And that's two years in prison. Then she's released, so what? She has the same burden of guilt (such a light term and is not close to redemption), she has no family, no home, no job. She doesn't need this world and she hates herself. The result is likely suicide.
In short, she took the blame not for fear of being ridiculed because of her illiteracy (a pathetic pretext), but only because she wanted to answer fully for the death of people.
As for the love line, everything is ambiguous: the feelings of both Hannah and Michael are obvious at first, but later they develop into something like a “giving to the drowning person” on his part and, accordingly, acceptance from her. Michael not very soon (which, in principle, is not surprising) thought to alleviate the fate of the "star of his distant" by sending her recorded on cassettes literary masterpieces. But one should be glad that at least it was enough, and this, in turn, prompted the woman to forget about all (including her) prejudices about how much a person should be able to do this and this and learn to read on her own, which cannot but cause respect. It's never too late to learn! By the way, here I see another subtext: emasculated speech, decent education is not a guarantee of decency, not a guarantee of anything at all. The most balanced and well-read person can be cowardly and cowardly.
The film tells the story of a man who remembers his past. In his youth, without reaching adulthood, he accidentally meets a woman who is almost twice his senior, love is tied up between them. How a teenager will be able to live peacefully when he learns the truth about his “girlfriend”.
The picture I liked the acting, Kate Winslet in no doubt the main character of this film, although many critics and film academics gave her the prize as a “secondary actress”, which is not true, because she really keeps the whole film on herself. As for Ray Fayanxia, I understand that he has such a character, but nevertheless I did not quite like his role, because when I watched him, I immediately wanted to sleep. If we talk about Cross, then of course this is his undertaking in a big movie and coped with his task, well shows the youthful experiences of first love, well shows his desire to stand out in the eyes of the public. I believe that despite the actors and the director, I think that the success of the picture is primarily in the script, since it makes the viewer experience the heroes, it is he who carries us throughout the 20th century, showing at the same time the life of that time, showing the power of love between heroes with a large age gap, shows the court of time, which should put everything in its place and punish the perpetrators. It is the script that gives the dynamics to this picture.
I personally liked the film very much, I watched it with special attention, because I only learned about the film after reading the book ' Reader', which I recommend to you. Of course, if I had just watched the film without reading books, it is not that I did not understand it, I would not appreciate it so much and not so much imbued with feelings for him and he would not become so heavy for me.
As always, there is one thing as big for me 'NO' where is it without it? (Spoiler Carefully!) The film misses some very important and key points. For example, one of them, this is their trip, namely the hysteria of Hannah, in the book Michael decided to surprise Hannah and in the morning went for breakfast for her and for a rose, leaving a note, and when he returned, his beloved tortured herself, she was hysterical. I asked him why he did this and hit him in the face with a strap, the key not because he showed once again that she could not read, but the key in their relationship. Because after this quarrel they became even closer, he saw her vulnerable and tender side, and then realized that she likes it when he takes possession of her, that she can be defenseless with him. Also one of the key moments was when Hannah dropped everything and left. According to the book, he saw her on the beach, but did not approach her, and when he wanted to, she was no longer there. That's the key point, because after that, he's been tormenting himself about whether he's betrayed her? Did you disown her? And so his whole life he was tormented by these questions. Also, one of the key points was that after her death he learned that she had been interested in his life all this time, as well as that she had read many books about concentration camps, which slightly smoothed her guilt in the eyes of Michael.
Also, missed the moment when he saw her dead body in the book and her face seemed to him as young as it once was and his bewilderment that he had not seen it before? There are also a few small things that wouldn’t hurt.
In the film, it is as if she was constantly making him suffer, and he came out more unhappy than it was in the book. Those who have read the book will not be disappointed. The acting, the setting, the atmosphere, almost everything I imagined reading the book, even slightly better than I imagined. This movie deserves attention anyway.
Of course, there is a lot of attention paid to love here, but it is also worth noting that the film shows more as in principle and the book, that any of us, any generation, can be a hostage of circumstances, as they say to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time and this hostage was Hannah herself. If she were 10-15 years younger, they would have everything much happier, she would not have become the one hated by the new generation, the one who broke the life of a young guy, the one who turned out to be a very unhappy woman, but life unfortunately is a very evil thing.
Kate Winslet played very well. I would certainly give her an Oscar if it were in my power. But by the way, from many people who have recommended Reader to me lately, I’ve heard that the actress’s work in this film allowed them to believe in her talent and take a fresh look at her talent after the sweet-salty (of course, with tears) Titanic. But I have seen enough of Winslet’s works that have long convinced me of her talent (Eternal Sunshine of the Pure Mind, Like Little Children, The Road of Change).
But what other than the acting of Kate so attracts the audience in this film? !
I was stupored after watching. As usual, I looked at the reviews to see if there were similar impressions and opinions in general, and then put together a puzzle of the society in which I live. After all, any movie is not only like / dislike, interesting / not interesting. If there is some morality in the tape, then its reflection in the souls of the audience is an indicator of what is happening inside them.
So about the "Reader" all the reviews I got are unanimously positive. I look at it with interest: “Maybe I didn’t see something.” But mostly I see only the praise of the main character.
Someone saw a beautiful love story. The picture of this “love” is beautiful, it’s true. I really liked the first third of the movie. And then... There are things that I probably can never understand or accept, no matter how touching the filmmakers present us, no matter how believably and brilliantly the actress plays. Every time I look, read or hear about concentration camps, I try to imagine these German women, these blonde fraus in the form of the SS, who tear children from their mothers and lead them to bathe in the bathhouse. I can come up with and explain to myself, not to accept, of course, but to draw a logical chain of why a person kills another for money, why a woman becomes a prostitute, why people steal or take bribes - this is all gross, dirty, but what motivates them, one can assume. But why do "normal" women do the work of destroying not only their own kind, but also children? Many of them were mothers themselves. How? It doesn't fit in my head. How did they come home and change their clothes and read a bedtime story to their children?
So I can’t feel sorry for the heroine, no matter how beautifully she lays down and frowns in the first third of the film, when she, oh, how proud, takes all the blame in court because... it’s a shame to admit that illiterate. What nonsense?!
And after all, we do not even see the authors’ attempts to justify the heroine by circumstances, as is often the case in a society without morality.
“Why did you go to work for the SS?”
Why? Should I have stayed at Siemens?!
She's also angry. What a stupid question!
Or, perhaps, to pity the main character, who his passion 16-year-old exalted in the "love of his life" and then could not be happy with any woman?
And after that I went two days not myself. I understand that this is just a movie, and it is not necessary to take it so personally. But what scares me is not so much the content of the film, but the attitude that the audience forms towards it after watching it. This is our society. A society of double standards. When there is no morality, no principles, then the great deceiver of the "cinema" can wrap any contents in a shiny wrapper, and then we cry when a cute killer is killed carrying a pot of flower under his arm, and we cannot hold back tears of joy when the beautiful prince in a limousine offers a cinderella prostitute a hand and heart. In both cases, I repent, was also sinful, was not mature and also felt when watching. But empathize with the Gestapo? No, fire me!
The story of two fates in the center of the plot. The fate of a 15-year-old boy intersects with the fate of a lonely and mentally unstable woman in her 30s. Sex scenes seemed unpleasant at first, because I wanted a serious approach, which was visible in the mood of the first minutes of the film. But soon, I realized that the sex scenes are not the main thing, they are shown in order to understand the bitter residue of feelings, forever left in the soul of the protagonist.
Throughout his life, he does not leave memories of the years of his youth, the years of his first love; all subsequent events lined up one way or another, depending on this love.
The sadness has gone through the years, pulling him, to some extent, out of life. The marriage broke up, with the only daughter did not create a deep relationship. The house is not a bad place, but it is full of bitter memories. He himself is hidden in himself, alone. Women came and went, but he remembers the one that came first. Takes out the diaries of those years when the free minute falls out. He remembers everything very clearly. From his memories of his youth and consists of most of the frames of the film.
But the love story is not in the past. It lasts his whole life, though his feeling, being alive, as all living things change, but the attitude, no matter what it is called, remains. Many years later, when the old sins were revealed. Hannah (as she was called) did not help her when she was working in Nazi Germany, although he had the opportunity. He was unable to open old wounds. And then he started sending her cassettes of his own literary classics. This she lived all the years of imprisonment, because she could not read.
This story is about the need for love and at the same time about the impossibility of the unity of lovers, when unity is a mirage. The Gospel commandments come to mind, two of them close to the themes of the film: “Do not create an idol for yourself” – the teenager created from a woman, out of love for her. His life was filled with sorrow, and psycho-emotionally he remained as if at the level of a teenager. And the second is "don't commit adultery." There is a loss of integrity, a split in the heart and mind. His soul lost its wholeness and he lost an important part of himself.
I have no doubt that the film is full of religious wisdom, this is especially evident by the end.
9 out of 10
Why do we think people are just good or bad? Because no one wants to admit that cruelty and empathy can live shoulder to shoulder in one heart. And that everyone is capable of anything.
"Desperate Housewives"
Why do we love drama so much? Why are we taking them so enthusiastically? Why do we leave a place of honor in our hearts? Perhaps because they give us the opportunity to experience the feelings of the heroes, their inner contradictions. The ones we have ourselves.
“Reader” is perceived in moderation easily, which probably should be attributed to its pluses, because the topic is not easy at all. I liked that all of these violent events were not portrayed as the main event, but were seen through the prism of Michael’s feelings. That's the real contradiction. What if the one who touched your heart so deeply was the first person you judged without knowing him?
Drama. Holocaust drama. The drama of Michael who carried feelings for Hannah through his life. And even Hannah's drama, which, no matter what, is sympathetic. Probably because she is played by Kate Winslet. I want to highlight the game separately, at the level of Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes, David Cross - young Michael Berg. It was very convincing. Everything: acting, scenery, emotions... Kate Winslet certainly deserved her Oscar. The same Oscar, in my opinion, deserved the operator.
The film is surprisingly finished. I thought the story would be thrown in the middle, leaving viewers wondering how it might have ended. We often complain that fate takes something away from us, does not give us a second chance. How often are we willing to use it? When this very fate puts all the cards in our hands, how often do we give them back? Why are there so many misunderstandings? Why are we willing to see what we are ready to see, but not what is, even if it is what we want so badly?
Good film, very high quality, keeping in suspense. The one that allows us to manifest feelings that we may not have suspected.
I watched this film at the insistence of my girlfriend, who, in turn, recommended it to a friend. After watching, I learned that the film was based on a book. I confess that I have not read the novel, although I should first familiarize myself with the original source. But the time is so short, so I'm going to talk about the two hours that I spent watching the movie that I'm not indifferent to. Interesting plot, great acting, good work of the operator - all this can be observed in the "Reader". I love movies of dramatic content (there are a lot of them in my memory), so I just have to characterize a movie like Reader from the best side.
The main component of my opinion is the plot of the film. I can't find fault here. The story of a poor, unhappy woman who, although she stumbled, but then deeply repented for what she had done, simply cannot but evoke sympathy and compassion. At the beginning of the film, when nothing is known about the main character, I did not really understand (I think, like everyone else) what it was like on the screen. Let's just say I even mentally criticized Kate Winslet for her intimate relationship with a high school student. But then, when the plot reached a climax, I finally felt the tragedy of the fate of this woman and willy-nilly began to empathize with her. Hannah Schmitz just wanted to forget the horror she was involved in. She wanted to be loved by someone. So it seems to me that for the rest of her life, she loved this boy first, and then an older man. This is a very suffering person, but at the same time a person is strong, not deprived of dignity. Therefore, at the culmination of events, she decides to break her whole life, so as not to look like a laughing stock in the eyes of others. In general, what else to say – look for yourself and perhaps get an idea of what I say.
Reading plays a huge role in the story and composition here. In two hours, a lot of different books flashed through my mind - I read something, I am going to read something, and I heard about something for the first time. I don’t think we need to talk about the influence of books on the inner world. That’s why people were much more spiritually advanced before the Internet was invented. One of the ideas that I came up with after watching the film is this: it is never too late to start enriching your inner world, and reading will contribute most to this.
Special thanks to the cast and acting in general. As I mentioned above, it is truly amazing. What struck me the most was this kid, David Cross. Despite the young age of the actor, his character turned out to be one hundred percent convincing. Kate Winslet also did her job brilliantly. I think this Oscar is well deserved. Even Rafe Fiennes played to the limit, which is also quite noticeable (especially towards the end of the film).
In general, the film was successful largely because of the plot and excellent acting. Drama lovers will definitely like it – personally, I was impressed all day. This film is a vivid example of high dramatic art. Not everyone will understand it, but those who will understand will receive indelible pleasure.
8 out of 10
Unfortunately, I haven’t read Bernhard Schlink’s book based on the movie The Reader. Perhaps reading the novel, I would have a different interpretation of the events seen on the screen. But since this did not happen, I will try to express my subjective opinion. I liked the movie. The manner of presentation from Stephen Daldry seemed to me quite good and quality. In two hours I traveled with heroes from now on, experiencing and delving into the essence of what is happening. Raif Fiennes goes to play such roles, this is his role, that is, the director guessed with the actor. Fiennes, as it were, was created and called to remain silent, to be a thing in itself, to walk pensively under the weight of problems and memories. But more than Rafe Fiennes deserves kind words of course, the game of Kate Winslet. I don’t know if it’s better in Titanic or this movie. It must be here. The makeup guys did a good job, but Kate's game is incomparable! Yes, and young David Cross is good, frankly.
Office. The office. A young man is standing there looking out the window. What's he thinking now? He was transported to 1958, the year of his growing youth and masculinity. He remembered sitting in the yard of a house, how unwell he felt, and remembered a woman who had taken a human interest in him. And then there will be not just a knowledge of the body of this woman, but also parts of the soul. He'll read her books, she'll like his voice. Why can't she read by herself? Because he can't.
But this is far from a complete picture of events. The film is not a manual for male adulthood. It's much bigger. Why? Because the story is not so clear. The heroine will not be a good girl, but... I'm not going to tell you who this woman will be, otherwise it'll just be uninteresting and knock the ground out from under her feet. The narrative poses serious questions and the answers to them should be sought in the spiritual world of our heroes and consider motives and actions, both from the earthly and divine point of view, so that the illusion of balance is preserved. Maybe not everyone will like the movie. Someone will find it too sentimental and feminine, I managed to feel the idea and atmosphere, for which I thank Schlink and the creators of the picture.
10 out of 10
The director of the acclaimed film "The Clock" in his repertoire - contradictory, dramatic, emotional, clever and very, very accurate.
I can say at once that I do not understand such a relationship, well, in fact, a woman under forty and 15-year-old boy is quite immoral. Well, if you want to show it to the audience, so be it. There are a lot of candid scenes in the film, which I do not like very much, I confess honestly, but again, let it be so.
The guy to some extent can be understood, the first relationship with a woman, although not everyone would act in his place as well. But Hannah thought only of herself, of her own pleasure. When the viewer learns about her past, much becomes clear. She's cruel, selfish. The way Michael reacted to Hannah’s actions in court (the one who watched will understand, I don’t want to spoil it) raised doubts among many: cowardice or condemnation. I can tell you that there was no cowardice. Michael at that particular moment decided that Hannah should be punished, because he was really horrified by everything he learned.
And all his life, Michael, who has already achieved everything, managed to get married and divorced, suffers from his act. Did he do the right thing many years ago, because his testimony was not the last? He wants to fix at least what he can do. Sends tapes to prison, encouraging Hannah to learn how to read and write, responds to a request to help her after she is released. However it may sound now, because of her profound ignorance, Hannah did not understand the horror of her actions, and only after learning to read and write, and then after reading many books, she realized everything. Yeah, it really is. Realized and truly repented ... and could not live with it. It is clearly shown how much a person can err and not understand even the most human and seemingly simple.
There is no doubt that Hannah ruined Michael’s life. It is. And it seems to me that she understood that too, only that everything is too late, so that nothing can be fixed. I would like people to always think about the actions they do, because in this way it will be possible to avoid a lot of problems.
The film ends with a very moving scene in which Michael decides to discover the story of his life. It is very correct that the end is this: the viewer has the hope that Michael has a man who will probably understand him and will not judge him.
Filmed – brilliantly, the actors played well, I did not think that Kate Winslet could play like this, although I always knew that she was a good actress. It's aerobatics. Bravo! The Oscar she received was certainly worthy. The role is more difficult than all the others in that year, fundamentally, according to the script and idea. I was surprised by Rafe Fiennes. He played very convincingly and accurately. As far as Cross is concerned, too.
When watching, you experience the strongest emotions, although they are not simple enough, it happens somehow by itself. Definitely, this is the merit of a brilliant script, a talented director, magnificent actors who managed not only to powerfully perform their roles, but also to convey and preserve the atmosphere of the picture throughout screen time.
The film is strong, atmospheric, not letting go of the viewer, who will analyze what he saw long after watching.