She was the best thing in my life. She's better than anyone who's been in my life.
"The only thing that will help to feel the fullness of life is love"
Re-watching the film and reading the book of the same name made me once again convinced that this is a good movie. Complex, dramatic. The story of two people woven by morality, morality, an attempt to understand and blame others. A story of two fates.
A lot of people would say that Hannah is completely insane to admit something she didn't do. How dramatic and lost she was in that moment! And how immoral were the people who threw the burden of collective crime on her. But it was more important for her to sign a death sentence than to admit that she can not read.
There's a lot to speculate about -- what would happen if the judge asked for a handwriting sample? But Hannah said loudly that this was not necessary. What would have happened if Hannah and Michael hadn’t broken up, but were still dating? But she decided to leave to give him a "normal" youth. With female students in bikinis, not an illiterate older woman. Plus, again, the inability to write when a promotion was offered. And again, the honor was higher.
The only thing we're shown without all these "if..."" are both single. Happy memories. And unhappy at the same time. He never found true love because his first relationship was the strongest. What did she see in her life? Concentration camp with thousands of prisoners, work as a wagon driver, after life imprisonment. No, I don't find their connection shameful because it was sincere. I don’t think it was wrong for her to “leave” because it eventually allowed them to meet again; for him to keep a warm relationship for the rest of her life, and for her to say thirty years later, “You’ve grown up, baby.”
With all this, the presentation of the material is quite real. Believable. Nothing superfluous. Nothing complicated. Nothing that would not lend itself to a reasonable explanation from the audience. Hannah's whole life - at least Hannah's - is full of drama. From the moment I met Michael until the last time I met him. Events are presented as they should be. Mixing with flashbacks, chaining to screens. And of course the game is Kate Winslet. Simple, ordinary, and so deep.
"And men are needed in order to settle down."
They are in the clavicle fossa - for nothing else.
Vera Polozkova
Hannah could argue with that. She never loved him, but she needed him, and as much as she could she tried to maintain this fading interest - youth is generally insidiously changeable, male youth is doubly changeable. Sex in advance, she needs to be sure that he will agree to what it was all about. Sex as payment - orgasm is sincere, everything is honest, as always happens in the Germans - the punctuality of the arrival of a small death stunned the boy. The feeling is strange, like string theory – you don’t understand it, but life is filled with some new meaning. Schlink was extremely honest in describing it, honest and remained, and therefore tired — the same thoughts can not fill the same skulls forever. Hanna knew more about it than anyone else.
Stephen Daldry prefers chronological to all angles - only time is able to assess the significance and probability of what happened. Regardless of the hero, it is independent, allowing you to live, forget, return, remember, forgive, revenge, tell, shut up, wait, keep quiet for a while, leave again, forget, travel, forget, return, forget, see, feel, see, want to forget, forget, forget, never remain the same — perhaps the only thing in which it will not yield. I think he believes that a person is free to choose, I think he believes that, despite the choice, everything will be as it should be, I think that this does not prevent him from setting precedents for this choice, just to prove the opposite. The inconfessibility of the ways of God in his interpretation is the rule of single intention, where the general Brownian movement of life results in a natural outcome, the inevitability of which, perhaps, gives him the delight for which everything was started.
It is addiction, addiction, her drug - personal, her own, hunger sucking somewhere inside, the fiery hell of her soul, which must be constantly poured with the moisture of strange, pretentious, simple, funny, sad, dreary, filled with moonlight, childish laughter, the breath of lovers, the heartbeat of hateful, sparkling and dull, almost weightless and falling ice phrases. She never had a world of her own and lived as a stranger. This ability to wonder was forever her gift and curse. To do this, she slept with men, kept trained Jews in a concentration camp, she was afraid of it, she was ashamed of it. Alexia's a premonition. Everything can end in an instant, and when a strange boy, so grown-up now, so ... indebted to her, taught her to read, he became her god, tapes her Bible, his voice the voice of heaven, his hands ... she still remembered how they can touch, so she reached for them, and he chose to forget.
There are people for whom the simplest things are more than just a habit. I guess Daldry can only make movies about these. And for those. Only.
Sun, burn the present in the name of the future, but have mercy on the past. (Henry Lyon Oldy)
Good stories start from the beginning, where do the rest start? “Reader” by Stephen Daldry according to the book by Bernhard Schlink began from the end, gradually delving into distant memories, so many years did not give rest to their owner. Over time, it becomes clear why Michael Berg is forced day by day to return to the events of his youth, and not lost in the depths of memory and not even faded into the background. What has so strongly influenced the consciousness of a fifteen-year-old boy, closing him in and turning him into a cynical, self-determined person? And it cost him on a rainy day, at the time of a sharp attack of jaundice, unexpected vomiting, to get help from a young woman who later escorted a sick schoolboy home? Hardly all this should be called a fateful coincidence, but this one decisive meeting in the life of Michael Berg was the culprit of his mental anguish, and the beginning of the story to which all his thoughts were turned.
The woman who poured two buckets of water on the pavement on the day of their meeting with Michael is associated with the beautifully spent spring and summer of a young schoolboy. His first life experience, the period of growing up, a brilliantly completed school year after a long illness - all these are the merits of a beautiful stranger who had a strong influence on the boy. At that moment, they were closer than ever since, and hardly any of them thought about the approaching future. They quarreled and he took the blame all the time, afraid of losing her, because the woman was twice his age. Every time they met, he read to her out loud: diligently, giving the right shades to his voice. She listened carefully to different authors of different eras, believing that all these books were written by contemporaries, along the way making apt comments on each of the books. It all ended suddenly: she simply disappeared from Michael’s life without saying goodbye, leaving her apartment, her job and the city, erasing her every trace so that nothing could lead to her.
Michael's pain from this sudden loss is like physical pain: if you just took out a tooth or cut off a finger. It remains unclear what caused this pain and what is the fault? The punishment that has fallen on a man’s head: without warning, without reason, is comparable to the disease that has left a serene village, with a war that has taken millions of lives. Chaos, confusion - all are the consequences of this monstrous punishment, which cannot be changed or stopped. It’s like someone decided everything for you in the first place, leaving you to admire the results of this terrible decision. The pain now hardly seems so terrible and incomprehensible, because it is everywhere. Death and mental stupor will hardly ever be erased from memory, erased from history. It is unlikely that in principle it will be possible to do something: run away as far as possible to the invented quiet place where no one has ever heard grenade explosions or the flickering of rifle fuses, cover with dreams of the future and outstanding plans for it. Here it remains just to look at the ruins, rake in ashes and come to terms with the idea that all this is true.
No one will be able to build a pure, happy world on the remains of a destroyed civilization, because every stone, every meter of land will be remembered as the former civilization fell. Here blood was shed, not water poured out of the springs; crime was committed, and the wise ruler did not pardon any accused. So why not give place to the harsh battle of time, bury the fallen wars and build an insurmountable wall around the great ruins? Because if this is done, there is no place left alive on earth, for the battleground is the soul of man, the surface of the planet on which we must continue to live. The Great Patriotic War is a disease from which more than one generation of descendants living a peaceful life will be cured. It is unlikely that we can do this, because not even a century has passed since the tragic events, which no one is able to describe without missing a single detail. Looking back, the past will immediately catch up. For us who lead nothing, the pangs of conscience are the consequences of moral education and the height of the level of mental organization, but this should not be so, for the consequences of the war, to varying degrees and for people in different parts of the world, do not stop and clearly palpable to this day.
Years later, Michael Berg never stopped hearing the echoes of the war, nor did he lose an obscure connection to the woman who left him decades ago. Maybe there are things you have to learn to live with. Overcoming them, remembering mistakes, and building a whole new world. The old one still leaves questions that cannot be answered. This is not even lost information or a failure of historians, but moral problems, over which it is better not to think. The defendant’s question hanging in the courtroom: “What would you do in my place?” remained hanging in the air without a judge’s answer. He weighs there to this day, for who would want to take responsibility and justify inhuman acts by human beings? After watching The Reader, not only this, but many other questions hang in the air, the answers to which neither law nor morality will give, only time is possible.
It happens that you are going to read a book for a long time or finally see a movie, but it does not work out. Either the wave is wrong, or there is no time, or you just forget for a while. And then this piece comes back to you at the best of times, as if waiting for you to understand it. This happened to me with the film 'Reader'Stephen Daldry, comparatively not new. It will not be about how I sobbed over this film, not about what a great acting there (after all, Winslet received for it & #39; Oscar & #39;). After this film, you think about the fact that silence, inaction - this is the most crushing, terrible thing that can be. It is better to say everything in time, when it is necessary, let it be terrible, shameful, immoral, or whatever, but not destructive. Unsaid then is not necessary to anyone.
And it is better to regret than not even try to explain. Sometimes we do things thinking that this is good, this is what we need, this is our happiness. But no, in fact, most of us do something for the good of others, for their satisfaction. And these others are those who strive to condemn, vulgarize, distort reality. Black and white, that's how we share everything. In fact, never really thinking about what is going on in the soul of this person, why the hell he does this.
No, there's always a way to judge. That's it. It's about the hat. Most of the time, things are not as we see them. Obviously, more often you need to show a banal understanding. Understanding, not wild judgment, will save the world. At least I hope so.
The reader made such a strong impression on me that I could not hold back tears. This story reveals before us the whole essence of human nature. The image of the main character is unique, and the acting of Kate Winslet is incomparable.
Pictures of the past and present appear before us, the characters are revealed with each twist of the plot. The scariest secret in Hannah’s life has nothing to do with concentration camps... it’s both terrifying and heart-warming. So simple and childishly naive, which literally contradicts the initial impression of her as a practical, harsh and somewhat rustic woman. A woman who had been lonely all her life, floated with the flow and survived as best she could. Which does not justify it in any way.
Michael is different. As we wander through his memories, he is open to us. First we see him as a young man who meets a grown woman. Everything is simple and easy - youth, attraction. He becomes a man, and Hannah plays an important role in this. He means a lot to her too, but different. Then he'll understand. A few years later.
The hearing is one of the brightest scenes in the film. When Michael discovers the secret Hannah is keeping, he feels involved but remains a spectator. It is this inaction that has troubled him for many, many years. Hearing turns his whole view of the world. What once seemed simple and understandable is distorted. Good and evil, black and white – in life everything is not so clear.
The film tells the story of two different people – a man and a woman. Their actions, good or bad, had a profound effect on themselves and their lives. Do we have the right to judge Hannah or Michael? For me, the essence of the film is that none of us are sinless, we are human. We often try to do what we think is right, but it is not always good.
9 out of 10
This film is very talented both from the director’s and from the script and actor’s point of view, but that’s just. The topic is complex and mulled already from different sides and points of view. However, here it is tied to the fact that each person can have a painful attachment, a painful complex. Something that a person would like to fight, but cannot. And now a person follows this painful, even over the heads of other people. All of this comes from a series of conversations about how true love is determined by the measure a person is willing to pay so as not to lose their source of love. And if you discard the themes of Nazism, you can project your illness and possible future with this disease, whether it is love for a person, for work or for reading. The outcome is generally the same: “There is nothing worse than a fanatical pursuit of good ends.” If nothing stands in the way, then everything can be done.
And here the feeling between a man and a woman, between good and evil, between parents and children - in general, as in most films - everything has a place.
Resume: a very honest, strong film, ready to watch the talentedly played story of German love of reading (and not only) through the heads of hundreds of Jews.
What is love? Scientists have shown that love is a kind of chemical bond, attraction to the opposite sex given to man by evolution. It is an integral part of human nature and in general, human behavior in a society like him. Cinema, in turn, taught us that love is passion, feelings, excitement, resentment, pain, joy, pleasure and happiness, that it is life itself. Life in all its forms. Love is inevitable, as is its trace in the fate of everyone. Bad or good. We don't have to choose. Nobody has to.
The story is so ambiguous, filled with both good and bad. A story of lost and lost love. Love is complex and unusual. The relationship between a 15-year-old boy named Michael and a woman much older than him, Hannah Schmitts. A meeting that changed a teenager’s life forever. Michael’s daily lovemaking and book reading seemed like a fairy tale to both. Of course, society will judge them, of course, no one will like it, but how can you stop all those feelings bubbling in the chest of two lovers? No one has the right to do that, except the feelings themselves. Such as resentment, misunderstanding and inability to forgive something to others.
The guy could not forgive Hannah’s departure, as he could not forgive her for all the atrocities she committed. As a warden in a concentration camp, Hannah decided the fate of others. This woman was one of those who decided who should die and who was worthy of life. She sent to death even those who she liked, those who read and were dear to her. So how can we accept the fact that Michael, a young man in love with her, also read for her, because he knew how much she loved to listen. I don’t think Hanna understood anything. No mistakes of the past, no mistakes of the present. It is up to each viewer to decide for themselves whether she deserves forgiveness and repents for all that she has done, as well as whether Michael did the right thing when he could have changed everything. The authors seem to want to put us, the audience, in the place of the judges.
If we judge the film as a film, and take a step away from the story itself, we should mention the following. It seemed to me that the beginning of the film was too long, to some extent sullen and a little boring. It has been interesting to watch only since Michael’s student appeared in court. From that moment it was impossible to break away. In contrast to the beginning of the picture, when it distracted everything and did not attract everything that was happening on the screen. But there was no desire to turn it off.
Acting at 11 points out of 10. Rafe Fiennes, Kate Winslet and David Cross played just fine. Especially Fiennes with his, perhaps, the smallest of the three roles, has once again struck his game. A very talented actor. I remember his charisma in "Schindler's List" and immediately want to review the tape Spielberg once again. The talented Kate also coped with her role with a hurrah, and it is quite clear why she received an Oscar. I haven’t heard much about David Cross, and it’s probably the only movie I’ve ever seen, but it’s a great one. There are no complaints about the actors.
The bottom line is clear. The film is worthy of attention. I advise you to watch the "Reader". It's a drama you haven't seen and a story you haven't heard of yet. The film is kind of brilliant. At least the idea. Love movies. Good to see you!
Sometimes it happens that one small meeting changes your whole life. She's a grown-up and strong, he's a typical boy. For him, she is his first love, for her, he is a small hobby. But years will pass and we will see what is not visible from the beginning.
This film is about our mistakes, about the things we perceive superficially, about the relationships we do not cherish and about the decisions we make. This is a moving film that really differs from all love stories in its simplicity and reality. The film takes place in post-war Germany, during the years of Jewish extermination and human cruelty. In fact, when you watch the film, you realize that there are people broken by the authority of the leader-chief, people who have no voice, who just do what they are told and ordered to do. Did they want it? Did they want to hurt others? I will remember the strong Hannah Schmitz. Can I justify her or be sure that everything is fair? I don't know. This is a difficult conclusion and I may never have the right to do so. This is one of the painful, powerful and difficult topics on the path of human development. Perhaps when I read the book, I will understand more.
First, the film begins with carefree melodrama, bed scenes and a sweet love. Then the summer days of happiness pass, and Hannah just walks away from Michael without saying a word. The guy was worried, but he would have coped with it if not for meeting her in 8 years. Perhaps that was the moment that prevented him from forgetting her and moving on. But why did he turn around halfway and not help her? He couldn't forgive her? He didn't step over himself? Why didn't she confess and tell people her secret? Was it worth twenty years? Will he find peace after all this? Forget it? Which is higher than law or morality? What if the law is a fiction? There are always more questions than answers, right?
I'll tell you about the great Winslet. Her performance is beyond praise. Her character we see in 1958, 1966, 1976, 1988 and, of course, in the memoirs of Michael in 1995. I think her performance throughout the film was not without reason on the shoulders of one Kate, unlike the guy played by two actors. Kate showed us the character of Hannah Schmitz, her fate, her remorse and the consequences of mistakes. The actress deservedly received her Oscar. The conclusion is unexpected, but at the same time understandable. Did she love her or did she love her? Love? I really liked David Cross, a young guy, he played great. I think that's what Michael Berg was supposed to look like. Rafe Fiennes was also good playing adult Michael. Emotions at the sight of everything overwhelmed me, and I came to my throat and came to a lump. Excellent!
In conclusion, I want to say that this is a complex film, to give it an unambiguous assessment. Don't try to hang shortcuts suddenly, this is not the case.
They say love is blind. For the first time, I looked at the meaning of this expression from a completely different angle.
And the film, in general, is not about love, in my opinion.
The film came out very complex, very ' caustic' maybe even ' sick'.
I did not think that after a huge number of masterpieces of world cinema I revised, after liters of tears wept during their viewings, I did not even hope that something would make me think so seriously again.
I was very impressed by the film, very deeply. I still doubt my attitude towards the main characters. The decisions they made were painful for many people, including themselves. Life is a constant choice between desire and duty, between life and death, between action and inaction.
The love story of Hannah and Michael seemed very touching from the first minutes. Such love is expensive, because their characters are very difficult for any relationship, they are very closed, all their feelings are stored inside them. In such relationships, feelings are even more valuable, because they are not asked or spoken about, they are only shown with a glance, a kiss, a half hint.
And it is not in vain that the work of A. P. Chekhov 'The Lady with the Dog' is mentioned so often; in a sense, this interprets the relationship of the main characters. He needed care, unconditional love, acceptance as he was. She needed to give someone her care, give someone her time, her joy, her soul.
So, 'Love is blind' - what did this expression mean for Michael? I think originally his love was youthful, he understood it in a rather narrow sense of the word, and he was blinded. Desiring care he didn't get in the family, wanting passion like any man, wanting drama like any teenager - that was the original feeling. And he could not see in this love (bo' greater), patient and forgiving.
I'm not judging Hannah. We all have our own past. All human actions have motives and motives have motives. And probably if Hannah went for this 'job', there were reasons for it. No one knows what they would do in their place.
One thing is for sure, she was very remorseful about the past and longed for forgiveness.
And at the end of her life, she regained her strength, she wanted to live again, and the scenes where Hannah learns to read look like a miracle. But the barrier of supposed indifference she faces when she meets Michael after all these years destroys everything she believed in and lived. After his death, he finally apologized.
I am shocked by Kate Winslet’s performance, the direction and script of the film.
The only change I want to make is the language of the film. I would prefer it to be shot in German.
And otherwise, it is a very strong, hurtful movie.
9 out of 10
The theme for the next Friday movie is different. Despite the fact that the plot of the drama Stephen Daldry fits it, I can not include “Reader” in the list, because it will be regarded as a spoiler. But in the future, I still planned to raise the topic of film adaptations of books, but there Daldry clearly earned a place for his ability to put on film difficult novels ("The Clock, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close). I have long wanted to see the Oscar-winning role of Kate Winslet. Moreover, the book by Bernhard Schlink impressed me and made me think.
As in the novel, the events of the film can be divided into three parts, each of which raises a certain rhetorical question. It all begins with the acquaintance of young Michael Berg with Hannah Schmitz. A young boy falls in love with an adult woman who becomes his guide to adulthood. Their relationship becomes the first point of contention. They are quite comfortable spending time together in the bedroom walls, but what will become of their love outside the apartment? I liked how the first part of the book was shown. It’s a shame that a few key points didn’t make it into the film. For example, the scandal over the left note, their quarrel about missed classes or Hannah’s date at Michael’s house. These are small things, but they are always remembered when you read a book.
But all the nuances more than paid off the phenomenal game of Kate Winslet. What a pleasure to watch Hannah react emotionally to the lines Michael read! It is this innocence that makes her look unique. On the one hand, Hannah appears before the audience as a person of subtle mental organization, but her other side is shown at the court hearing as a defendant, where she very frankly answers the accusatory questions and does not even try to justify herself. The second important point is the question: “Should one reveal the secret of a person for his own good, if he does not want it?” It is a pity that the film did not get a lot of reasoning and emotional torment of Michael.
The third important point is responsibility for what has been done. I feel sorry for Hannah. Yes, I openly sympathize with her and think that her fault is no more than that of any other indifferent German of that generation. Don’t forget that she was under the law at the time. Her behavior was considered normal. You cannot find a scapegoat by calming your conscience. It is a common fault that humanity has come to such horror! It is a pity that many have not learned anything from this life lesson or drawn the wrong conclusions. This is a very powerful piece that makes you think. Be sure to read Bernhard Schlink's book.
Of the main disadvantages, I will highlight Rafe Fiennes and English. I have no complaints about Fiennes, but why try to romanticize the image of Michael? There were no bitter tears at the end and no walks with her daughter through the cemetery! Damn it, it's not some sweet melodrama! And I don't understand why Schlink insisted that the film be in English. I think a German speech would be more appropriate. But still, my hand will not rise to put the rating lower. I would like to stress once again that the book left a stronger impression.
Muse, tell me of that man of great experience who has wandered for a long time since he destroyed the sacred Troy.
I've been interested in this movie for a long time. I'm a longtime fan of Kate Winslet and have wanted to see her Oscar-winning work for a long time. Also, because of the subject: not the one that many people might think about, but the books. About how they change a person, how they fascinate a person, how they affect his life. And that many people, like some book - they grab you with their head and do not let go until the very end.
The film covers most of Michael Berg’s life. In 1958, at the age of 15, a woman named Hannah Schmitz escorted him home when he had a fever attack. Michael is drawn to Hannah, and the attraction was mutual, and soon they become lovers. Their romance lasted a whole summer, and then Hannah disappeared, leaving the young man with a broken heart. After 8 years, Michael becomes a law student and at one trial he sees Hannah again, only she is in the dock and is accused of murdering more than 300 Jews.
In this film, 2 themes are clearly traced: the first is the topic of crime and punishment that you will receive for a crime, no matter how many years you hide, do not hide, do not try to forget, the punishment will still overtake you sooner or later. And it's terrible, though it's lifelike, but it's terrible. Perhaps a person repents of his actions and wants to forget about the horrors that he once had to do. And then they make him remember. Of course, who does not even try to repent and it is obvious immediately. In Hannah, we see the deep regret, the hopelessness that led her to take this job. How will the process end?
The second theme is love. I've seen so many different love stories on the screen, every time I try to imagine something I've never seen before. Some stories repeat themselves, some are familiar and some are different. And there are some I've never seen before. In this film, I see true love between a boy and a woman. After all, he was a boy in all his senses, and she taught him life, love, happiness. Between the characters from the first moment there is a connection, attraction, which resulted in real feelings, in the most real feelings, that many years later, although this is not openly recognized, but the characters still love each other.
If I recently see Kate Winslet in serious dramatic roles. It's her element - serious dramatic roles. For her role as Hannah Schmitz, she was awarded an Oscar for Best Actress and quite rightly so. Many scenes with her participation - in them we see not the actress, but the heroine: a mysterious woman, about whom we know very little, only some tormenting memories. She is happy and happy when she spends time with Michael. Touched the scene where she sits in the church and, listening to the choir of children, crying. In court, however, we see a tired woman, tortured by long proceedings, who as much as possible protects herself from the questions of the judge and our sympathies remain with her.
Michael Berg played 2 actors: David Cross in his youth and Rafe Fiennes in his adulthood. David played a very impressionable young man, full of hopes, plans and love. It is impossible not to notice the huge love that he feels for Hannah: reads her books aloud, from which she laughs and cries, writes her poems, goes for a walk on bicycles. He didn’t think about the future and what it would be like. His suffering, when we see him in the courtroom and he looks at Hannah knowing she can't see him, is hard to convey, but he did great! And Rafe played the already grown-up Michael, who can not forget his first love, how it affected his life, so it seems that he just goes with the flow and passive through life. The highlights come when he reopens the books after all these years and starts writing them for Hannah. We see Michael awakening from long oblivion and feeling life with him.
It's an incredible movie. I’ve read Bernhard Schlink’s book before him, and the film almost matches it. Where all the key scenes are present unchanged, only some details have been changed. The film has the same power as the book and will make a powerful impression on the viewer and will not soon be forgotten.
9 out of 10
I went to the bookstore and spent a little more than half an hour there before my eyes fell on The Reader. Attracted the cover with famous characters, I accidentally opened chapter 3 of the first part where Michael came to Hannah's house to give her flowers and thank her. I read the book in two days and was delighted. Having heard about a good film adaptation, I decided not to postpone in a long box and watching the film.
To shoot such a film should be difficult, because the book is built on behalf of the narrator and he always explains everything, explains and his actions do not cause unnecessary questions. Michael is the author and the main character, it is impossible to separate these two people and make a film where Michael will be on a par with other characters just to live. The film has lost all charm and makes you constantly ask the same question: Why?! Why does he behave this way, why does he do it and why does he not, why can’t he change it? The film, like the book, is not oversaturated with dialogue and is characterized by a fairly frequent change of picture. Everything flips through and rushes to the next picture, the actions and the entire storyline are only marked. Life events do not carry a special semantic load, because for Michael himself they are only bridges to the main actions, changes that occur within himself.
To consider the play of an actor in such a simple narrative from the life of a boy is difficult, but possible. Kate Winslet very accurately conveys Hannah from the book, she is just as reserved, a little harsh, secretive, but her constant reaction and glances at people who can read still confuse. She's too fixated on her illiteracy, when she wasn't too embarrassed. She is always running from something, she appears as a strong woman in court, but it is only from his weakness, he is unwilling to do something, she believes that everything is already lost and nothing can be returned and changed. After the film, the question remains: did she love Michael? Or was she a desperate person who is sometimes indiscriminately ready to rush into the pool just to forget all the pain, all the regrets and just to exist? Would she send him to the camp to certain death, like the girls she read and cared for? Hannah is a very interesting character, she's a relic of the past, she's someone who wasn't responsible for her mistakes.
Rife Fiennes gave the impression of a man from an intelligent family, whose life was chaotic, but he succumbed to his own understanding. He knew how to choose and make decisions and it is difficult to condemn or call something wrong, he is tormented all his life by questions to which he has not received answers after time and will never receive.
The film deserves the attention of the viewer clearly. He is calm, narrative, he does not give a whole picture of reflections, but definitely pushes them. Problematic, frank, but still with some charming restraint.
7 out of 10
It's one of the heaviest films I've seen. But at the same time, one of the strongest and most penetrating. A heartbreaking story that you believe more and more with every minute of the film, and you end up completely immersed in it.
I’ve been postponing this picture for a long time for one reason. I find it difficult to watch heavy movies. You need a special mood and concentration in order to be able to appreciate. It doesn't make sense. And this movie proved that it was worth waiting and choosing the time. In no case can I recommend it to absolutely everyone - especially sensitive and moralists are not recommended to view accurately. But for lovers of strong stories about strong feelings - perhaps.
A powerful story about two unusual people. It’s about how one person can change another without even revealing themselves to them completely. Changes in feelings, not words. Changes that have affected at least two lives. The story is about convictions, principledness and a very thin line between moral foundations, upbringing, a sense of correctness and one’s own desires and dreams.
Acting. For a very long time. It's that feeling. I will remember Kate Winslet in this movie. There are different Oscars for Best Actress. This one for me is one of the most deserved. + to the unusual for a complex and extraordinary character. In recent years, the roles of semi-psychotics and eccentric personalities have often been encouraged, and the more unusual (but no less well deserved) this award looks. I believed in this heroine (without a shadow of sarcasm (P.P.S. yes, then I am a moralist) completely.
And yes. I'll remember Michael. Let's have two actors. But still. Not to lose the image against the background of such (in my opinion, the best) role of Kate, is very expensive. Thanks to the writers for the dialogue. Got it.
9 out of 10
I just can’t put a ten, because of how hard this movie was for me (for example, heavier than 127 hours).
The film, based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink (by the way, just the other day I was lucky to see a TV interview with Schlink in the next country program of Posner – this time about Germany) introduces to the cinema not so common theme as female Nazism/fascism. Agree, more well-known such films, where the main characters or villains are men. And here's a woman. Strange and strong, mysterious and tough, unhappy and lonely.
But there is nothing new in the novel of a woman and a boy, but it is shown quite new and fresh. For all the frankness of some scenes (here you need to pay tribute to David Cross - not everyone at the age of 18 will star in such a movie and do it so confidently and strongly), there is no excessive vulgarity, the viewer does not have a feeling of nastiness, disgust, fear for a second.
While watching this picture, I did not get out of my mind two works of Russian literature - the story of A. K. Tolstoy "Viper" and the novel by L. N. Tolstoy "Resurrection". Hannah Schmitz (heroine Kate Winslet) - strong-willed, proud, independent, tenacious, withdrawn and gloomy firmly connected in my mind with the main character of "Vipers". And the action of Michael Berg (I will not spoil, and it is already clear what I am talking about) clearly reminded me of the behavior of the hero of the Resurrection Nekhlyudov, who found the strength to correct what he did. Berg turned away from his beloved...
"Reader" raises very important questions and problems: about what he did and retribution for what he did, about accepting punishment and repentance, about the proximity of two people, about loyalty, purposefulness.
The movie is very good. If possible, I will definitely get a book.
The only thing I didn’t like was makeup. Michael's aging mother, Michael himself (Rafe Fiennes doesn't change over time) and Hannah. It doesn’t seem too convincing.
And finally, I didn't have enough emotions to give the highest grade. I didn't have enough tears. There is dry pain, dry loneliness, dry sadness. Unfortunately, my tears had nowhere to shed.
The film ' Reader' evoked profound thoughts and experiences.
The film is based on the plot of the trial of the guards of fascist concentration camps. “Society relies on laws, not morality” – the words of the professor from the film emphasize this.
There's another line in the movie. The line is not love, as many may think, due to the presence of erotic scenes, but the line of interpenetration of fates. The line of influence of people on each other, spiritual growth. How can a person change during life and what circumstances can contribute to it? This is in the film and shown.
There are 2 main characters in the film: Hannah and Michael. Their meeting and short-lived close relationship greatly influenced Michael’s life. In fact, he lived his whole life for Hannah, almost all of his thoughts and deeds concerned her. That’s because Hannah was so much stronger. Hannah was a strong-willed, proud, purposeful woman. She lived as long as she had a goal: to learn to read and write. She died when she achieved that goal.
The film does not show Hannah's childhood. I didn’t read the book, perhaps it was intended by the author, but if it wasn’t, then the director made a serious mistake. Because it's not clear what causes Hannah to cling to survival: ' do you think I shouldn't have left the factory?
Hanna lived alone, but she wanted to develop in the sense that she studied if given the opportunity. She hoped to fill the void with the experiences of the heroes from the books. The experiences of others revealed a part of her Spirit/Soul potential.
Hannah and Michael were very different. The main difference was that Michael was more attached to society, zombified by it. He had more stereotypes, and you can see the role of childhood. He even condemned Hannah in the end, superficially, without understanding the true reasons for such actions. Not realizing that the reason for the desire to survive in any way is in society itself. The negative impact of the system on the consciousness of each person.
However, in Michael there is an inner desire for the Light. The soul breaks, but at the same time it runs into a huge wall of reason. It seems that he could not move freely, as if he was tied to the mountain by hundreds of chains, like Prometheus.
In my opinion, there was no love in Hannah and Michael’s relationship (with a capital letter). This confirms the episode: when he asked if she loved him, Hannah frowned in perplexity - she didn't even think about it because she was spinning like a squirrel in a wheel; her goal was to survive and learn what could contribute to it.
At first, Hannah had pity for a boy who was in trouble, then the plan was to use Michael as a teacher, as she had done with prisoners. She didn't need sex like Michael. She could have lived without him, but he didn't. In this respect, she was on her head higher. And here it is not about age, but rather in contrast to the female inner world from the male world as a whole.
Over the years, Michael began to repeat the path of Hannah: deepened in himself, but at his level. He felt that the women he met were no match for Hannah. Hanna had what he lacked, and at the same time the seeds were already in him: wisdom and depth, perhaps unconscious.
That's why he was so drawn to her. However, she not only attracted, but also repulsed. Hannah herself for a long time could not understand the reason for this duality in herself. And it hurt her a lot when he didn't even hug her in prison. This event, in my opinion, was the cause of her suicide. For me, this was the most painful moment in the film in terms of emotions. He never got over it. Not even on her, but on the whole ' story' in general. He wanted to go back and change his mind, but he didn’t. He never managed to completely overcome this stupor, apparently caused by natural softness.
It is strange that the film only gave a hint of their separation. I think it's a big omission of the author/director.
A very important point characterizing Michael, as well as the main problem posed by the film, was his dialogue with the daughter of the survivor. This strong enough woman could not really hear and understand him. Her almost petrified Heart was only partially able to thaw thanks to Hannah's box, which reminded her of the positive things in her childhood.
In general, the film makes you think about certain questions under the general dreary mood. “How can a new generation not repeat the mistakes of the old generation?” The truth is that many things repeat themselves in people’s lives. It was from this calculation that Michael told the story of Hannah.
9 out of 10
And I'm not afraid of anything. Nothing. The storms sent upon us by the hostile fate will further fan the flame of my feelings. The dangers will make it even more beautiful. I will be your guardian angel. When you're gonna be out again
It's a heavy movie. Very heavy to me. He made a lasting impression on me. Honestly, it is very difficult to express all thoughts, it is difficult to answer or stop asking the millions of questions that swirl in your head after watching. It is impossible not to think about him, the film touches on all, as I think, the most painful topics: concentration camp, unequal love and an all-consuming sense of guilt.
You know, it was only after reading some of the reviews that I realized, and really, the whole movie was a lot of pity for Hannah. But she's a beast! A woman who has sent hundreds of other women and children to her death, how dare I pity her?! But is that really true? Is it her fault? And I don't mean other female wardens, but those who are much higher and far more guilty. Hannah's just a pawn in a foreign field. That's why I feel sorry for her. As for the beginning of the film, for both characters, this relationship is something new. A breath of fresh air, a window into the world. They inspire and complement each other. We made them do something new and look forward to meeting. There is nothing perfect in this world.
Even in this film absolutely accurately and vitally shows fear. This is a common human fear that we face many times a day. Why didn't Hannah talk about her illiteracy? Was it so difficult, because her own life is at stake, how can you sacrifice it? I don’t know what was going on in this poor woman’s head. Why didn't Michael defend her? After all, no matter how strong the resentment is, love breaks down all facets, why? He could have, but he didn’t. In other words, like us, we act for our lives millions of times without even paying attention to it. Michael is shown as an extremely cowardly and insecure person, who is gnawed by the past. Life rarely gives second chances, but that happens. Michael had a second chance to fix it, to start over. The past plays too much role in relationships with others. Especially if the past is so terrible. At the end of the movie, I cried. In that short time, I saw so many broken and mutilated lives. Of course, that's how it should have ended. Michael and Hannah could not live happily ever after. These are the rules of life.
I don’t think there’s anything to say about actors, and that’s obvious. I will never stop thinking that Kate Winslet is a brilliant actress. She is capable of any role and "Reader" proves it again.
A life movie. And fair. There is no sugary romance here, even in the beginning sexual relations are shown quite crudely. Of course, the film is definitely worth watching. I've never seen anything like this before. It makes you think about a lot.
The visualization of Schlink’s novel The Reader is a good work by director Stephen Daldry. He managed to shoot a picture that lost little from the original source, for which I thank him very much.
The history of the relationship between a young man and an adult woman does not seem to have gone. Everything in her is organic: he teaches her theories of life from books, she teaches him practice. It is difficult to say that their relationship is built on love – rather, on affection, mystery and responsibility. This is a story of pride behind which we hide shame.
In my opinion, Kate Winslet perfectly embodied the heroine of the novel Hannah. Such an awkward, simple woman. I never cease to admire this actress: she is always so different, and it is difficult not to believe her. Honored, undeniable Oscar!
But Rife Fiennes, sadly, jumped. I thought he had the same expression in the whole movie. Apparently, he is no longer interested in playing non-scum heroes.
The film leaves behind a sad and thoughtful mood, after which you want to believe in the good.
8 out of 10
I am not a fan of films of this genre, because most often these films are very hard to watch, have notes of boring and after watching leave very little positive emotions. That's probably how it should be.
But. “The Reader” caught my eye, and now I realize that there are exceptions to all the rules.
The film is brilliant, the film is beautiful. But my opinion is that the film is not about love. A film about the fate of a man. A film about finding yourself in this world. And the most important thing for the main characters - Hannah and Michael - is that they never knew love in the full sense of the word. They weren't made for each other. But once they met, they broke their fate forever. And it was obvious from the very first minutes of the film.
I don’t understand only one part of the film. When Hannah is informed that she is being promoted to the office after reading her Report... She didn’t know how to write/read at the time.
The great thing about watching the movie is that it mentions our books! Chekov, Tolstoy. Everything!
Strongest movie ever! About the first love, the first sex, the imprint of those events that the main character will carry through his life. About war, about crime and punishment, about moral choice and responsibility for actions.
The film begins with the love story of a young hero and an adult woman. In the film, there are many frank scenes that are absolutely not vulgar, but some vital and even pure. The young actor David Cross played well.
One of my favorite actors, Rafe Fiennes, played an adult hero. I really like the moment at the end, when he comes to a woman from a concentration camp and tells her that he was Hannah's lover in his youth, but he doesn't tell you, but it's clear. He loved and remembered her and that youthful love all his life. In general, emotions are perfectly played through silence, look.
All the actors are great! What are absolutely disgusting female guards, how unfazed and insolent they are, knitting on the bench, covering their face from the former prisoner at the lineup, and then attacking Hannah? She is one of the naive truths.
Kate Winslet impressed with her game! I've always respected her, but after that role, she's just on a pedestal for me. As my husband said, “That’s what the Oscars are for!” She earned Kate an Oscar and other awards. Her heroine had a difficult moral choice, because she worked as a guard in a concentration camp, she chose people to be sent to death. Of course, now, especially for those who haven't seen the movie, it would seem like a monstrous crime. Yes, it is, but it is not so clear. Then the whole country lived under the regime of the fascists and this is what the worst was considered normal!!! This theme also comes up in the movie, "You Knew" Why did you let this happen? This is one of the most difficult issues of the century. Everyone knew and did it... and there were only a few people behind bars.
In general, the most powerful psychologically tense film. It is impossible to forget, it turns the soul. If you like it, I highly recommend it.
The movie is very correct. I watched it 2 times and each time with admiration. A movie that encourages you to read a book. And the most interesting thing is to read the books Michael read to Hannah. This is a good movie, but let’s get it straight.
Plot. At first I was frightened, and I sat for a long time and thought about what it would be like if I was shown that a grown 36-year-old woman was sleeping with a boy who is not even 16 years old. But it wasn't that easy. I decided to look. And starting from the court scenes, I had tears and sympathy for Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet). As a young Michael (David Cross) wanted to help her, as he was hurt for her and as he did not want to be a lawyer at the time. Did Hannah have a choice? I don't think. She didn't want to talk about her illiteracy, so she didn't confess. But is illiteracy condemned? It's complicated. When Michael (Rafe Fiennes) becomes an adult, he is still a “baby.” When he started recording tapes of various works, I just cried. And the pride I've been feeling for Hannah is something I can't put into words. I was proud of her, I was proud of her. Having that kind of willpower is something.
Actors. Thank you very much, Kate Winslet. A worthy Oscar, a worthy role. The way she played. BRAVO!!! It's not even a discussion. As for the Adult Michael Rafe Fiennes, he somehow did not convey the emotions about the memory of youth. So he didn't do much, especially when he came to see Hannah in prison. But the young Michael - David Cross - very good! Good girl. All the problems of adolescence played and passed on to the viewer.
General. I really liked the movie. I always look at his tears in his eyes, and in my opinion, the director has not lost. So it's all decent. Nice picture. I'm just going down for the adult Michael.
8.5 out of 10
If no one understands you, no one can ask you for an answer.
The restless exciting beginning of the film already sets the general tone in advance, the mood of what will happen next. The story is piercing, touching to the depths of the soul. It touches on questions concerning not only love, but also honesty, betrayal, despair, injustice, morality, sincerity.
At first glance, the story of any relationship between a child and an adult woman seems strange. However, as it turns out, the child is not such a child, and the adult woman is pure, at heart naive, in need of help.
An incredible combination of circumstances leads to mutual help of two heroes, soon turning into the appearance of sincere feelings.
I felt compassion for the characters while watching the film. In some moments, there may have been a desire to condemn one or the other, but somehow did not arise, probably because these moments are justified by difficult situations in which the characters fell.
A huge plus of the movie is Kate Winslet. More emotionally, harmoniously, beautifully to experience what is going through her heroine, hardly any other actress could. At least it's hard to imagine.
Again, the addition of military themes to the plot of the film gives the picture seriousness, complexity. By the middle of the film, there is a feeling of a hopeless situation, and I want to be near and help, for a moment it is forgotten that this is only a film.
And of course the ending. Not satisfactory for me personally, but exciting, perhaps, every viewer.
Watch the movie to the end, this movie is really worth it.
10 out of 10
A film that causes a storm of conflicting emotions.
I'm thrilled!
Kate Winslet's performance is, as always, excellent. Hannah doesn't look like any of the heroines in her movies. Sometimes sensual and weak, sometimes proud and withdrawn woman. She agrees to carry a heavy sentence (in this case, life imprisonment) only out of shame and fear of admitting her illiteracy. Everything that was required to convey to the viewer in this picture, she turned out perfectly. Rafe Fiennes was a little short of the already “enough adult, burdened with heavy thoughts about the past” man he wanted to see in this hypostasis. It's too callous emotion, too poor in general. But the young David Cross managed all 100. From the beginning to the end of the film, you experience his thoughts, actions, reactions to everything that fell on his younger years. And the role itself is pure and beautiful.
The plot lines are extremely clear in that the viewer does not miss details, since the past and the present are shown variablely.
A film about the forbidden, about passionate desire, about the transmission of emotions through reading literary works, about misunderstanding, cruelty of the soul and forgiveness, about amazing relationships. There are many things to think about.
The overall impression of the film "Reader" is very positive, despite the not simple and even difficult ending.
9 out of 10
Perhaps the most difficult thing in the director’s business is to film a book. Not just a book, but a good story. After all, everyone who reads, to the best of his imagination, creates for himself images of characters and the terrain where events develop. And very often the expectations of the audience do not coincide with the opinion of the creators of the film.
The screen adaptation of Bernhard Schlink’s novel “The Reader” was taken up by Stephen Daldry, and he coped with his mission in many ways successfully. The only thing the director and screenwriter did not cope with (and it was almost impossible to do this) is to convey with the help of mere facial expressions those feelings and reasons that guided the characters in making decisions. The creators of the film allowed the viewer to evaluate the actions of the characters, to determine what is fair and what is not. On the one hand, this is correct, and the film leaves food for thought, but on the other - leaves a lot of questions, and some sense of incompleteness and understatement.
There is nothing to complain about in the director's work. Kate Winslet is adorable. In this film, she demonstrated her fantastic acting talent and received a well-deserved Oscar. To David Cross and Rafe Fiennes only one significant claim, and not acting. With the roles they coped perfectly, but on the outside they are not particularly similar. And when the audience is shown that after 10 years, Michael Berg has turned from a young guy into a man of respectable age – it does not look realistic.
Perhaps if I had read the book before watching it, the film would have left more emotions. But it turned out the way it did. I will definitely read the book soon. And then I'll watch the movie. My acquaintance with this story is just beginning, and I hope it will bring a lot of impressions.
Stephen Daldry’s drama “The Reader” is not just a film, but a truly high art. The co-production of Germany and the United States has created a unique love story that happens once in a lifetime. The main characters Kate Winslet and Rafe Fiennes, as in their previous films, showed the audience genius and high acting skills. Writer (also the author of the best-selling novel of the same name) Bernhard Schlink is very exciting, interesting and at the same time cruelly portrayed the difficult but real fate of human lives. Thanks to him, each viewer (and I am sure that everyone) experienced an incredible, emotional load at the time of viewing this masterpiece, and this is the highest award for a writer, when the text on paper produces unforgettable internal impressions that remain in the soul of people. The filmmakers deeply penetrated the main theme of the film - the first love of Michael Berg and the last joy (moral and physical) of Hannah Schmitz. Their meeting is not just an acquaintance for the sake of intimate relationships - it is the most difficult stage in their lives, which left an "eternal" mark on the hearts of lovers. He taught her to read, and therefore to understand and enjoy the culture and art of the modern world. She introduced him to adulthood and showed him natural love. I would like to thank the producers of the film Sidney Pollack and Anthony Minghella, who died during the filming. This picture is their final Point in World Cinema, but they staged it with dignity, as representatives of the highest talent, whose creativity is timeless.
His life is a memory of the one that changed and changed his life forever.
I read Bernhard Schlink’s book The Reader and watched a movie directed by Stephen Daldry. “Reader” is one of my favorite movies. He captivated me with his story and playing the main character of this film.
Kate Winslet is my favorite actress, and she plays in this drama chic and very talented. I think she deserved the Oscar for Best Actress. Her play in this drama is dramatic, emotional, and most importantly believable.
We see a boy who has an intimate relationship with a woman who has a very mysterious past, and secrets that are better not to know. After talking to her, everything changes in her life. He is no longer a boy, but a man who has deep feelings for a woman who has deprived him of his innocence. In an instant, she disappears abruptly, and he does not see her for many years, but one day at the trial the guy sees her in the face of the convict and is struck by who she was in the past.
This is a movie about love, about forgotten military secrets, which sooner or later always come out. “Reader” captivates the viewer with its history and the deepest and strongest play of actress Kate Winslet.
Cinema takes us to the past and shows us the present. We look and see how true love can stay in a person’s heart for a long time. In the film there are many erotic scenes where Winslet demonstrates himself to the audience in all its glory. The film is gorgeous and not watching it means losing a lot.
Good to see you!
The first twenty minutes of the film were particularly memorable. During this time, Michael's acquaintance with Hannah and the time they spent together are described. The creators of “Reader” know about the universal weakness, so saturate the beginning of the narrative with erotic scenes. Let this not be a Catholic approach, but nevertheless the viewer pays attention to the moment of the birth of their relationship, which correspond to the plan, in my opinion.
There is a feeling between a 15-year-old man and a mature woman. (I don’t call it love because of a lack of definition.) The boy reads different books to her, which acquires a certain sacred meaning in a relationship that lasted less than a year - she disappeared.
Michael is studying to be a lawyer and in the course of his training encounters Hannah again. He remembers everything, he still cares about her, but they are divided by society. Why didn’t he give her a secret, because it would make life easier for Hannah?
Because he respected her more than any law or public duty. Michael showed us not a possessive approach, but demonstrated the qualities of a respectful and sensitive person. Despite all the strangeness of their relationship, they respected each other and therefore were able to learn from each other.
He learned to make other people's opinions and decisions, and she - more sensitive to others, because Hannah relieved him of the burden.
I don’t want to say that the characters of Reader did everything right, but they went a certain way and drew conclusions. It is up to you to agree with them or not.
After watching the movie, I want to talk about something else.
Was it worth shooting the guards, as one of the characters suggested? What would you do in their place?
The problem is not that time was different. It is obvious that there and then people looked at everything completely differently. You have to judge whether someone had the opportunity to help their neighbor rather than change everything. But, being in this time, it is very easy to judge others, because when there is temptation, everything can be justified.
I think the conversation was also about pettiness. You have to learn to draw conclusions, and you can't bring the dead back. After all, a young man who proposes to shoot only for the fact that people were somewhere and involved in something (a common phenomenon), like no one close to the Gestappo with his manners.
The film is about a lot, and for me there is only one line – love. Transient and boundless, happy and bitter, understandable and incomprehensible.
The main character - he is verbose, serious, was born this way, assertive. Not knowing what to do, he always tried to be right. But everyone has their own rules, so opinions are different.
How much can the first love affect a man? It inspires, inspires, inspires. An ordinary young man can act like a grown man. Are they born that way? Is it passed on through genes? Or does it all come from the family, from the father?
The whole story went through me. For me, Michael is a symbol of reliability and inviolability. How can a young man evoke such feelings? I wish I had such a son. Deep, sensitive, complicated.
First love with an adult woman gives a lot, but it can take a lot if you do not let her go in time. How much life experience can an adult woman give, how many feelings, a careful attitude, an understanding of the female nature. This is the duty of fathers to teach by their behavior and attitude towards the mothers of young boys. Michael is doubly lucky, he has a full family, a caring mother and a strict but understanding father. For the sake of first love, Michael turns mountains, sells stamps, acts audaciously and not according to the rules. Because he feels and feels love in himself and for himself. Of course, Hannah loved him, maybe not the kind of love where there's a responsibility, a future, a plan. But in her love for Michael, she was forgotten, as she had forgotten reality in the books she read. Hannah was running, running her whole life. From lack of understanding, from shame for inability. What lies behind this, we can only guess, because at that time a young German woman who could not read could not be condemned as severely as Hannah judged herself. I'm sure there's something more profound about her punishing herself for being illiterate all the time. I think she lived by instinct, somehow mechanically. And on Michael's birthday, she knew she had to run again.
Can we blame the likes of Hannah for the broken fortunes of young boys? Are they broken after talking to adult women? Everyone who does this has their own goals. The guy wants to experience new unknown sensations, the woman wants to remember these first pure feelings. Everyone wants a little warmth, and most importantly understanding.
Do we talk to people a lot? Yes, every day we give a few thousand words to each other, and in response we hear only faceless words. We have forgotten how to “see” how the person in front of us feels. Eyes, tilt of the head, facial expressions, gestures, awkward movement, incomprehensible pause, all this we miss, rather just speak out and get the necessary information. They say that in our time, the sense of intuition has completely disappeared. Have we not stifled it ourselves? Translated, intuition means “watching closely.” That's it! You just need to look at each other when you communicate, then there will be more mutual understanding.
A few years ago, this movie was shown on TV late at night. I don't remember him making any impression on me. Still, the age was not the right one for the perception of such films. Anyway, I barely sat up until the end, or maybe I didn't. A year later, I saw the movie again on TV and decided to watch it again. After watching this movie, I fell in love with it. I found him so unusual and interesting, so strange and powerful, that I was in awe for a long time. A little later, I bought a CD so it would be forever. A few months ago I read a book.
The story of the film is indeed unusual. I really want to talk about the main character, about what is wrong with her, but I will just say about the main character. Hanna Schmitz is a person who has no real life. On the one hand, she is to blame for this, and on the other, she will not blame her. She lived without very important abilities, thereby losing the ability to feel true love, affection, warmth. She tried to live as best as possible for herself, but as soon as she crept closer to the goal or to the next step, the fact that she did not know how to destroy everything, and she again found herself below. Hannah didn’t seem to want a better life for herself, although she tried to work for her good. She was so emotionless, as if the whole world around her had lost all its colors, as if she had become disillusioned with every person on the planet. Of course, at the end of the movie, you already understand why she was acting so weird. However, I thought Hannah was a little weak-minded. It really looked like this, and it's confirmed by the scene in the courtroom. She utters rather strange statements, which, for example, I did not fully understand. I mean, I didn't understand how she could say that. How could she do that without saying anything?
I don't blame Hannah for messing with a boy 15 years her junior. She is an elderly, single woman who has not had a man for a long time, and judging by her lifestyle, she will not. She found a kind of consolation in this boy. But was sex the only thing she needed from him? Nope. That's the whole point, the depth and the tragedy. She asked him what she couldn't do herself. She hid it as best she could and she did. Young Michel helped her in her inability, or rather helped her enjoy what she could not. And don't let him know. Of course, it was all serious and difficult for him. He treated this woman like the most beloved person in his life. He idolized her. Everything was trying to do better for her. There was a scene in the book describing how he stole a dress for her from a store. And in the director's version of the film, she is, by the way, too. Michael found his only love in her. And that's partly true. Over the next thirty years, he was constantly tormented by thoughts of her, of them. But these are just memories, because they are different lives now.
You're too weak to upset me. You don’t mean so much to upset me.
I think the story is a little wrong. Shouldn't Michel have protected Hannah when she needed to? If he loved her so much, he would. It is very difficult to really understand this story. I don't know what I would do in his place. He was a key part of the story, but he didn’t seem to find a place. Although Hannah’s fate depended on his words, the choice was difficult. After everything that binds them together, what should he do? What was he supposed to do? He's right and guilty at the same time. But you can understand it, too. This is a very serious step that had to be decided, if you were sure.
The cast is incredibly pleasantly surprising. Kate Winslet absolutely deservedly receives an Oscar for Best Actress, because Hannah she turned out perfect. So serious, strict, trying to hide everything in her eyes. Perfect candidate. And I will mention the unknown to me (and I think almost to everyone) David Cross. He's just amazing in this picture. His face reflects every emotion, positive or negative. He very sincerely showed his feelings and feelings, showed everything. Really impressed and very liked this actor. Rafe Fiennes played a significant role only in the last period of history, that is, in the 90s. I won’t say I was impressed or surprised. Not bad. That's all.
The reader forces us to plunge into the world of illusion, into the world of deception, love and fear. Do you have to live your whole life in such depths, take the blame and hide forever, if you could overcome fear and reveal your truth? In those days, people weren't so cruel and mean, and they would have been able to understand and maybe even help Hannah. This film makes us understand why we live on one side and what we live on the other.
It is left in the past, as the city, past which the train passed, remains. It's not gone, it's still there, you can go there to make sure. Just why?
Reader is a powerful film about strong people. Sooner or later you need to take a step, the main thing is to choose the right direction. This picture shows us the fate of one person, which is decided by another person. And it happens every day. Destinies intertwine and one destroys the other. A good book and a great film adaptation.
I watched this movie more than six months ago, but it still doesn’t let me go. So I decided to write a review. There are such films that claim to be a lot, beautiful and lush, and it seems that they should have some pathetic meaning, but you do not feel it. You understand: yes, the authors wanted to say this, and this, and that the good will necessarily win. But it doesn't. But Reader, on the contrary, came out without major advertising (I don’t even know if it was played in theaters), imperceptibly, but still deeply cut into my heart. Probably because the meaning of the film is very close to me, touches some deep strings of my soul.
Perhaps someone “Reader” will seem boring and gray, long and boring, then it is better not to watch it at all, but go and chew popcorn under the next blockbuster. It is a film about war, about life after war, about a life in which there was war and in which there was none. How these lives met and could not understand each other. This is a film about two people who fell in love so strangely and unexpectedly that at first they could not believe it. And that love still does not save the world, because besides it there is another life, there are fears, there is pain, there is a past.
“Reader” is very harmonious, saturated, beautiful. The story of the love of a boy and a woman, a love fragile and vulnerable, who timidly knocked in the heart from under the open door, from behind the shoulder of a half-naked Hannah, from the elusive words of unread books. The first half of the film is an amazing picture of love, passion and tenderness. And the second one. The second is fear, shame, bitterness and war, or rather its consequences. I do not want and will not retell the plot, I only convey my emotions that do not want to leave me.
After watching the movie, I read the book. But to be honest, the book seemed a bit drier than the movie. Apparently, the acting is so good that I believed them immediately, and the book revealed to me only some of the personal motives of the main character, but the overall “picture” did not change. The film makes sense and is not at all ephemeral, as in other films like the Tree of Life, but it must be fished, chewed, felt. The point is that people not only love each other and rejoice, but also fight, kill, put prisoners in prison. That in addition to your own feelings and emotions of the “inner world”, there is also the idleness of being the “real world” and you need to adapt to it somehow. In war, everyone survives as best they can, only after the war, you have to pay for it. And sometimes for other people’s mistakes, for someone else’s “silence” pay those who are not at all guilty. Michael’s painful, torturous, lifelong attachment to Hannah – what is it: retribution for his sins or for her? And how can you live with that?! I don't know. There are many questions that remain open, and everyone will determine the answers for themselves.
The film made a strong impression on me, I will undoubtedly review it again and recommend it to anyone who is looking for meaning in the movie, not entertainment. Very subtle, beautiful, strong cinema.
I didn’t read the book, but I felt like it was a book. Perhaps many points are spelled out in it more clearly, especially the character of the main character. And the philosophical comprehension of the actions of the heroes is probably given more space. I can’t say that the film shook me or opened my eyes to things, but it left a pleasant impression. Fragmentation, restraint and some meditativeness of events convey the flow of time and life, slowly bringing the viewer closer to modernity, which for Michael means summing up. Everything is done or not done. It's fate. The fate of a woman with whom he was once associated with love and passion - the first and bright, so that decades later they did not disappear from memory.
The acting was pretty convincing. Excessive emotions were not expressed, almost everything happened in halftones, but realistically. Only Michael’s daughter remained unclear to me. They seemed to have a good relationship in the film, but at the same time she knew little about his life and feelings. His decision to tell about the fate of Hannah Schmitz somehow harmoniously fit into the film, but doubts arose whether the daughter will be able to take something for herself from this story and sympathize with her father and this woman.
Ilana Mather is an interesting image. This is a strong, well-managed woman with her strong position. She was at the epicenter of the events, rather than hearing about them from the third hand, like Michael, and therefore she cannot and does not want to forgive, does not intend to seek the reasons for Hannah Schmitz’s behavior and argue about justice. At first I wondered why she kept the box. It was hard to understand that act. After all, this tin belonged to her enemy. Then her behavior, manner of holding and speaking, slightly arrogant, led to the idea that this box became for her not so much a subject of nostalgia, but a sign of the triumph of her own life over the evil she faced, a symbol of retribution for those who caused her and her family suffering.
As for Hannah Schmitz, she has come a long way. Little is known about her, but at the beginning of the film she appears as a young and attractive woman, not devoid of compassion and craving for beauty, but unusually closed and not too trusting. Music and books touch some strings in it, but without them she calmly manages, the range of her interests is limited. There is something sublime about it, but there is something primitive. She is like an uncut stone, her actions are intuitive, not conscious. This is more pronounced when Michael meets her for the second time as a student. Hanna is alien to maxims about morality, ethics, moral choice. Her own philosophy is simple and cynical, and she simply does not understand how to think otherwise. In the court scene, her face expresses genuine suffering, fear and misunderstanding. In her excuses, she is artless, guileless about everything, while the other women plot and accuse her alone. Hannah is so unimportant that revealing her secret to so many people in court is embarrassing, even though it could make her life much easier. It looks a little weird. However, I don’t think she consciously gave up trying to defend herself, realizing the gravity of her own guilt. In my opinion, she simply gave up with despair, seeing only hostile faces around, grazing before the ruthlessness of the judges and the prosecutor. She didn't dare "drop herself" even more in their eyes.
Michael's tapes made her return to classics years later. She felt a desire to learn, to master what was not available to her, began to read. Her horizons began to expand, and the boundaries of her consciousness began to expand. The meeting with him after years was a certain result for her. Her views have changed. When she says, “The dead can’t be returned,” it feels like she’s really had to think about it a lot. I thought she was still hoping for Michael. Something really broke after that meeting. His question about the past showed that it was important for him that she repented, realized the true meaning of her actions. That was what was important to him. Perhaps she felt that his attitude towards her could not become the same, that there was a barrier that she could never overcome. Not only between him and her, but also between her and others.
Overall, the film is quality and worthy. I don’t admire him and I understand why he has received so many awards. The oppression of the Jewish people, the moral changes in man, the unusual detail of reading classical literature – I think all this played a role. But it was definitely worth watching.