I haven't read Bernhard Schlink's book, that's my omission. So I'm only judging the movie. I haven't seen this in a long time. Interesting, serious, fascinating, vital ... you can find more than one definition for this film.
Good script. And these leaps in time do not almost confuse the beholder, although I would rather speak only for myself. I can add that I had more sympathy for Young Michael. In his youth, he gave himself more to his feelings, was not ashamed of them and could voice without hiding what he felt. What happened to him then? Why did he become so rude, withdrawn? After Hannah disappeared? Yeah, well, that was the tipping point. The pain and resentment he endured remained in his heart. His secret, which he couldn't tell anyone. It broke him. For many years, he was haunted by the past, memories of love, that I sat so deep in his heart and therefore so badly wounded.
I'm wondering. Why did Michael remain indifferent in blaming his first great love? Why didn't he get to Hannah, talk to her before the hearing and final sentencing? It was as if he had taken part in his punishment. Helped to harden the punishment. I'm sure he felt guilty in some way. He did nothing to convince her to testify truthfully.
Kate Winslet. Bravo! Oscar deserved! Great game, all natural, believe everything. David Cross was also impressed. As I said before, I empathized with his character, which means that he played his role perfectly, felt it and conveyed all the feelings of the hero. Good cast. There's nothing to complain about.
I’m going to read a book soon, the film touched me so much. I think that after reading it, the film will not disappoint me.
10 out of 10
I read Schlink's book about a year ago. Yes, much, yes, intriguing, but still not so touched the strings of the soul. I noticed for myself as a good, unlike other, thought-provoking book, and that's all.
But then the other day I came across the film adaptation, read the cast, became interested. Everyone could not believe that the role of the Nazi Hannah is played by Kate Winslett, that romantic naive girl from the Titanic.
But from the very first shots with her participation in this film, I realized that no one else could have played this role better!
' Reader' shows that there is no such thing as 'evil' or 'good', neither black nor white. Was the ruthless Nazi guard Hannah kind in sending people to die? Was it wrong that a lonely woman, Hannah, had warmed up a young boy, Michael? Here she is - a dillem, how can only fit in the head of a guy in love this wild thought - that the woman who caressed you, who laughed and cried while you read to her, who was jealous of stupidities, who was so woman, suddenly turns out to be a killing machine, insensitive and ruthless?
And then there's this important little detail: an adult can't write or read. According to a strange female logic, it is easier for Hannah to sign a death sentence than to admit it to anyone. This was not slow to use her former ' colleagues ' and accomplices in the crime.
Also, the sense of savagery of this 'the court' well, really, how can six women who were just thoughtless performers be accused of a crime of an entire nation? That is for this thoughtlessness and paid the main character. . .
It was striking, but not surprising, that this first love, the painful bond of an inexperienced young man never let him go all his life, determined his further character and behavior. This is the power of first love!
The film definitely needs to watch, makes you think, feel.
To begin with, perhaps, with the fact that I “came up” to this tape is not easy. For a long time I fell in love with Kate Winslet, but for some reason I was not interested, did not notice, for the role in which the actress received an Oscar. So, after looking at the list of her awards, at the very beginning of this summer I came across the movie "The Reader". No, I didn't watch it then. After learning that this is a film adaptation of one of the most popular novels in the world, I decided to get acquainted with it. I ordered this book on June 10, but only received it a week ago. Despite the craving for this film, I waited for the novel and read it in a couple of days. Well, he conquered me, grabbed me from the front pages, made me sad, rarely laugh and smile, just hooked me. Of course, after waiting for Friday night, I turn on this movie. And the reader met all my expectations! I felt again what I felt while reading: sad, smiled, wept a little. Only I didn’t have to imagine anything, invent images of the main characters, views, environment and genuine emotions of the characters, so this masterpiece looked even more pleasant and easier than I thought. As Newsweek wrote, “The Reader” is a concise in form, complex in moral issues, powerfully charged with erotic novel. That’s how the film turned out, which makes it beautiful, but unfortunately short, fast. It was really very difficult to fit in an incomplete 2 hours a whole story, a large adventure life of one person, as Berhand Schlink did it in an incomplete 200 pages.
As is clear from the description of the plot and candid screenshots, the tape is about, it is safe to say, a criminal relationship between an adult woman and a teenager, which develops into something more than just sex and dates, into tragedy, pain, betrayal and tears. So, in the center of the plot is Michael Berg, who tells his story about the connection between him and a woman named Hannah Schmitz. The film can be divided into three parts: Young Michael. Michael – student, future lawyer; Michael in the '90s. In the beginning we see an adult Berg who remembers the past. Well, he's 15 years old and has scarlet fever. On his way home, he threw up in the back door. A woman came to help him, who washed him and cleaned the floor after him, escorted him home. After a while, he came to her with flowers to thank her for her help. But this did not end: they slept together, soon made love again, and so began their affair, which lasted one summer. She packed up and left without warning him, no one. Eight years later, he meets her again.
The film struck, shocked, surprised, upset and at the same time lifted the mood. A very bold picture that caught the eye with its drama, harsh realism, fleeting happiness and disappointment in the lives of some heroes. Like the novel, the movie turned out to be concise, short. I’m 100% satisfied, I got what I wanted! Unfortunately, everything happens too quickly, unnoticed. Perhaps the creators were not sure of the success of their tape, so they did not make it three-hour (which was very necessary to do)? But you can see that they tried on the work of the operator, the chic play of the actors, which I will praise below, the beauty of the narrative itself, the presence of bold bed scenes, the elegantly outlined plot. Satisfied that the creators, as I understand it, perfectly worked out the novel, which is very noticeable in the details (Hannah dresses up, Michael is confident, he loves her; the sounds of the saw and construction on the street, drying out the linen; she strokes the bra, which embarrasses him; the image of Hannah in court, etc.), street views, characters, the construction of the film and scenes of reading books, which are very important in this film, as its title tells us. The film ridicules the vices of that society, the foolish dreams of a teenager, his perverted mind; the film tells about pride that can both help and harm. “Reader” makes the viewer get lost in their arguments, bewilder, hate and love, empathize and even, I hope, change their views on life.
Acting is more than at the top level! I've known the main duo for a long time. I respect both of them, and Kate loves them. Each actor became a copy of his prototype from the novel, lived his role, showed himself on 5+! Kate Winslet is an actress that I admire, love her play and heroines, facial expressions, gestures, voice - everything! All her roles are strong, memorable, tear-inducing, often bitchy. It’s a shame that there are actors who have two Oscars in their pocket and have only one. If I could, I would give this living legend an Oscar for every new role, but unfortunately I can’t. I’m so glad that this talent came out in this movie! Well, the role passed through, lived it, worked, felt all the emotions of Hannah Schmitz, and not just on camera crooked. Well done! Rafe Fiennes, who is known to us as Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series, did not please with his presence, but still pleased. He entered the role skillfully and beautifully, despite his young age (his character is much older). He played a serious person who is worried about the world, Hannah and his life.
In conclusion, I want to say that “The Reader” is a strong, deep, heartbreaking picture that every lover of drama should watch! I recommend absolutely all readers of the novel, of course, people who know how to appreciate the plot itself, the acting, camera work and beautiful music. Skillful film adaptation, which, I am sure, will hook you and will not let go for a long time. Beautiful dialogues, a sad life story, beautiful scenes, a high level of drama - this you will get by watching the movie "Reader". My rating is no lower than
Perhaps not the main idea of the film, the main dilemma of society, balancing in the amplitude of worldviews. There were classics on the subject. Tolstoy wrote about this in the Resurrection, hinting at a change in established principles. How should society advance to try to correct the pragmatism of imperfect laws? Does prison fix a person? What should be the nature of human thoughts? And what must be the spiritual and mental level to speak of the harmonious interweaving of the sublime and the earthly? Global problems seem eternal, but they do not cease to be relevant.
Now, after watching, you realize how ambiguous everything is. I am very grateful to the filmmakers for raising these questions in me. They made me, as a spectator, look at the Holocaust from a different angle.
You're alone, but even if you have a friend,
He will not see all the troubles on the palms of your hands.
(A.V. Lysikov, better known as "Dolphin")
And yet, how amazingly certain people influence us. How can we be alone and yet not alone because of them? A youthful love so strong to forget. So strong to impact the rest of your life. It is this thrilling, reawakened feeling that makes Michael try to understand seemingly understandable things during the trial. Only he's willing to look at Hannah differently than the rest of us. But imagine that a man deliberately destroys himself, and you can save him, would you save him? The choice does not seem so simple in this case. I wondered at first why he chose not to testify for Hannah when he was the only one who knew the truth. And only a little later I understood, and this is when salvation in the context of the law does not save a person in the soul, on the level of conscience. After all, who, more than Michael felt (although hardly understood) Hannah as a person, tried to realize at that moment what life was like, reliving everything over and over again. And the drama is that repentance in this case, even sincere, does not give calm.
Here there is another problem, not all of the defendants tormented by remorse. He is saved behind the back of a hired lawyer. We are talking about justice, and while we are right, we are aware of the imperfection of the corrupt world, the nature of human nature.
To understand is to forgive. But how do you know? And more to justify? Is it not these thoughts that bother Michael that make him somewhat alienated at the moment of meeting 20 years later, but at the same time, against all odds, leave him a true loyal friend. And this long bond of two people in an incredible way passes through books, through the mystery of reading, leaving no room for everyday platitudes.
Actors in the film deserve the highest praise. I bow my head to the incredibly complex, deeply emotional work of Kate Winslet as an outstanding dramatic actress. And is it worth arguing about the merit of all the awards received, if you imagine what forces it was worth to pass through such an image? This is a rare moment when, with such a strong influence of the picture, one does not want to applaud, but simply be silently grateful to such Talent, such Art! This is a film about which it is better to keep silent than to talk a lot.
10 out of 10
Another chamber film about the tragedy of a man and a woman, which did not become bad from its turn.
Stephen Daldry is known for his dramas, shot in a not quite traditional style. If in “Billy Eliot” he undertook to prove the masculinity of the profession of a ballet dancer, and in “The Hours” he unconventionally looked at the inner world of three women, then in “The Reader”, as critics write, the drama “Woman and the Holocaust” is considered. In Europe, apparently not particularly bothered about the victims of Nazism in general, especially nervously react to the topic with Jews.
The film is still more complex, broader and not about the Holocaust, but about those who became victims of the system as a performer. This is the subject of personal responsibility. The ability to recognize your true sins, not imaginary ones. And how little progress society has made in its ability to judge. And it is fair to judge the Hamburg account.
The most terrible sin of the heroine was her inability ... and inability to speak about her inability. Otherwise, she took on more than she deserved. In many ways, this bold conclusion is due to Kate Winslet’s really great performance. Pauses in the tragic moments of the fate of her heroine are worthy of admiration - they are confused, and strength, and shame, and pride. Love scenes deserve special mention. For a long time there was no actress who, without complexes, but not for the sake of showing off, demonstrates her body. This is very erotic and not pointless. Working with actors is generally a trademark of Daldry.
Finally, it is especially pleasant for us (partly unpleasant) that Chekhov’s Lady with the Dog plays a special role in The Reader. Take a look and find out which one.
This film is a look at the most terrible thing that humanity has seen in its history, from the unusual side, from the warden of the death camp. Of course, it is easiest to regard the actions of any and every member of the Holocaust on the part of the Reich as a blatant crime against humanity, deserving neither forgiveness nor even the possibility of repentance. This film is an attempt to ask whether the verdict so easily handed down by many of us is so unequivocal.
Winslet’s character is an extremely strong woman. We are not allowed to judge what it was like before the war. We only see the result of what she went through. She's the only one of the six defendants, I'm sure, aware of the amount of blood she's spilled. Perhaps this, it is the incessant mental anguish and forced her to close herself from the outside world in herself. Repelling anyone who tries to get close to you is an extreme form of self-isolation. I think there was no alternative to living in this world. Precisely because these memories do not allow her to forgive herself, she herself agrees to lie on the rack of prison, when in fact she could justify herself. Her guilt was no more than that of the other five wardens. Moreover, even after 20 years in prison, when “justice” decides that she has served her time, that her guilt before society has been redeemed, she does not agree with such a decision ... she simply cannot, as no one else could, on whose hands such atrocities are on, and who has a conscience to realize it. What kind of justice are we talking about when of two equals in guilt, one even without considering that he deserves punishment, is released after a symbolic term, and the other, who repented at the moment of the crime and admitted his guilt even beyond it, is sentenced to life imprisonment?
“Society thinks it relies on what is called morality, but it is not. We rely only on laws, and this is the fatal difference between the retribution to each for what he has done, in an adequate and proportionate degree, and what we call justice. Take the same Devil's Advocate for example... what's his libe motif? The one whose guilt can be proved is guilty. Nothing to do with the idealistic inevitable and proportionate punishment in reality, apparently, does not.
“If your generation doesn’t learn from the mistakes of my generation, why should it be?” More than one film has been made on this terrible topic, and everyone invites us to ask the same question, but in a different way. And I think we need to know and remember this horror so that we never repeat it.
Strongest film, script, direction and camera. The performance of actors, especially Winslet, is beyond praise.
Everything is secret, one way or another becomes obvious. As they say, the mistakes of youth must be paid, even if they are forced, unintentional. Only some people delay this moment in every possible way, lie without a blink of conscience, hiding behind others, and others (when the time has come for the obvious) honestly keep the answer and even take part in the guilt of those first. Hanna atones for her sins in full in this life, did not sink and did not waste time for nothing. Helped her in this book... True, in the end they also “helped” her to part with her life (this is the only moment that I categorically did not like), but it is not us to judge a person who did not have the courage and strength to endure everything to the end.
The film raises another important question - does a person have the right to hide information in court that can affect the course of the trial and the fate of the defendant, if it hides the defendant himself even at a loss? Apparently, by higher laws, yes. In this case, he must hide someone else’s secret.
In general, the film very contrast depicted the fate of the heroes of the mad twentieth century, the changeability of eras and formations, and the imperfection of justice-fluger.
9 out of 10
After watching the film, I immediately read Schlink’s book of the same name. In my opinion, they complement each other: the text is dry, and cinema, on the contrary, evokes strong emotions. It is a pity, of course, that Michael’s key – or one of the key – dialogue with the driver was not included in the script. I quote.
Those who killed had no reason to hate and were not at war. But the executioner does not hate the one he executes, and yet he executes him. Do you think he's doing this because he's given that order? The executioner doesn't follow orders. He does his job - without any hatred for those who are executed, without a sense of revenge, he kills them not because they stand in his way or threaten him. So indifferent that he doesn’t care whether to kill them or not. Where's your but? Let me tell you that man cannot be so indifferent to man.
And Michael has nothing to say. Indifference, as D. B. Shaw said, is “the worst crime we can commit against people.”
Michael didn’t stay indifferent to Hannah all his life, but it didn’t save her. There was nothing to save, because you cannot escape from yourself. And Hannah, having realized her guilt at 60, now makes a verdict on her own, refusing a quiet and peaceful old age. Unlike Hermina Braunsteiner, the first concentration camp warden to receive a life sentence, she never repented of her actions.
Kate Winslet, perfectly played a rude-sentimental German, said that she never forgave her character, and the only feeling towards her was pity. Something similar happened to me, hoping for a happy ending. Is it possible to have a happy ending at all? Perhaps Michael should not turn around halfway to his beloved prisoner. Or show a little more emotion during the last meeting. After all, you always believe that love is the strongest, but it turns out that not always and not everywhere. Sorry.
In order for love to win more often, such books and films are needed.
First of all, I must say that I have not read the book, and therefore I will not speculate on the topic that it depicts something better. I can only say that, in my opinion, the film pays too much attention to the relationship between lovers, which slightly confuses us from the main idea. The idea itself is not fully shown. And at the end of the film, there are still questions that I will try to answer.
What moved Michael Berg when he was in prison, going to a meeting, turned around? Why didn’t he say what he thought he should have said in court? Wanting revenge for a broken heart? Or did he want her to decide her own fate? Or was it influenced by the hatred of the younger generation of Germans towards their predecessors? It seems to me that the act of this one character, the author wanted to show the attitude of the whole younger generation to his legacy. As one of the students said at the seminar, “Why do only six people judge and not all of them?” These and other questions were asked by a whole new generation. It's hard to know how to live in peace with your parents, knowing what horrors they've done.
Perhaps, as residents of a country that has experienced war the most, we think first of all about the sufferings that we have experienced, but not about what happened to Germany, what consequences it experienced and perhaps still suffers. It’s hard to fight evil, but it seems to me that being a part of that evil, and most importantly, it’s even harder! I think that's why Hana hangs herself. Of course, the plot turns out that the reason for the pain she caused the boy. But I think the author wanted to show that when she realized what she had done to one person, she knew what she had done to everyone else.
The film definitely deserves attention. The acting is beautiful, the plot is exciting. But the author failed to fully show the essence of the film, to fully reveal the topic, it is painfully heavy and wide.
7 out of 10
This extraordinary film certainly deserves attention. Before the eyes of the viewer, interesting and extraordinary events unfold, the play of actors, directing, the work of the operator, artist and other participants in the film process at a decent level.
The performer of the main role was awarded the highest recognition - the Oscar. I would like to dwell on this in more detail. As you can see, this prize is usually awarded for the performance of large and difficult roles. Moreover, this sentence should be taken literally: not necessarily complex, namely difficult roles. In my understanding, complex is when an actor does not know how to play, does not understand what the character feels, what his intentions, desires, fears are. It is difficult, for example, to bring a tear. It is clear that he is grieving, it is clear that he is suffering. But try - play authentically! Another option is when it is physically difficult: scenes of beatings, shooting under the “rain”, cast on a hospital bed, etc. And always at the same time it is necessary to be in the frame a significant part of the timekeeping. It seems that the artists deliberately “go to the Oscars”, in advance coordinating all the “shock” moments with the directors.
This film is a prime example of that. A lot of nudity, candid scenes with a young partner. We'll add more! The actress is trying, the Academy prize is getting closer. Further development of the plot. Strong emotions: humiliation, fear, surrounding hatred. Playing in a complex makeup of older age. The applicant is given one hundred percent. And in the end, the goal is achieved! The Oscars were well deserved!
Now about the work itself, that is, about the film and the script basis. Sometimes there was a feeling that everything was invented in cold blood and made artificially, the sense of authenticity of the whole story disappeared. It seems that the author of the novel was based on his own memories. But after all, one hundred percent coincidence never happens, and where exactly the author gave free rein to fiction we do not know. In any case, the “cheques” are arranged thoughtfully: first, the boy is young, and the woman is in power itself, then they change roles: the hero grows and grows masculine, and his girlfriend, alas, inevitably ages.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the film is powerful. And the sheer abundance of questions that will certainly arise after the “session” suggests that it should be watched, and most likely revised.
“The feelings we experience are completely irrelevant. Much more important is what we do.
Another great drama starring Kate Winslet is released worldwide in 2008. This time we are talking about the film adaptation of Bernhard Schlink’s novel “The Reader”.
The film tells the story of the life of an aging Michael Berg, in which several main stages stand out: high school; then studying at the university; after another time - Michael is experiencing family discord and divorce; and finally, our days.
At first glance, we are talking about the relationship of two people: about love and romance, about the secret and the obvious, about separation, betrayal and hope. The connection between a schoolboy and an adult woman, so ambiguous and sincere, from the first frames of the film captures attention, as if taking the viewer away from the main idea, the more unpredictable is the development of the plot and the finale of the picture. The story of unequal relationships lying on the surface, smoothly, as if by accident, turns into a story about the events of the Second World War, and raises the complex theme of crime and punishment, the division into right and guilty, attempts to understand, realize, punish and forgive.
The vast process of searching for truth, which still does not end, is about how people who have participated in war crimes of their own free will or are forced, consciously or unconsciously, to be tried. Thoughts about the right to judge, which perhaps no one had, in fact, because some representatives of justice also lived in fascist Germany and indirectly were accomplices in everything that happened. Questions about who deserved punishment and who escaped from responsibility.
All this by the authors of the film is so subtly, openly and directly shown in half an hour of screen time, on the example of the trial of the wardens, a separate concentration camp. The way the creators of the film managed to reflect all the ambiguity and depth of the events in question in a short time shows how competently the script was written and, as a result, effectively worked out on the set. Everything turned out to be simple and clear, while tense and dramatic - this is a rarity, since often films affecting this side of the Second World War turn out to be blurry, since the topic is really unbearable.
However, this ideological component of the picture is not its key idea. Moving away from the story of one young man and one woman, from the events of the early 40s, from the search for answers to questions, the meaning of the picture opens in deep reflection on the theme of the relationship of man to man.
What do we call love? What do we mean when we say this loud, “I can’t live without you?” All the sincerity and warmth with which people relate to each other, all the faith and affection, the union of souls and bodies - can it destroy one small truth, one forgotten past, one skeleton in the closet? Is it not because we have learned about a person something hitherto unknown, something unpleasant about his former life, that makes him something different for us? Here she is, the main character of the film, the same woman beloved by Michael talks about herself and suddenly, overnight, becomes a stranger to the main character, unfamiliar, frightening, turns into something else. Has anything changed in her attitude towards him? Nope. Why is it different now?
The beautiful play of the actors shows the versatility and versatility of the picture under consideration. Kate Unslet once again proves that she is a professional in her field, which results in a number of awards received for her role, including the Academy Award. She, masterfully reincarnating as Hannah Schmitz, exposes all the positive and negative sides of her character. Speech, gait, gestures, facial expressions, manners - all this the actress demonstrates with such authenticity that goosebumps run on the skin. In the film there are many candid scenes in which Kate Unslet looks so natural, natural, without embellishment. As a result, the actress perfectly turned out the image of a simple imperfect, but at the same time attractive woman, behind whom a difficult life, whose past literally spills out through her behavior.
Unlike Hannah, whom Winslet plays throughout the film, Michael is played by two actors: David Cross in his youth, and Rafe Fiennes in adulthood. The character of Cross turned out to be very touching, open and naive in school years, and empathetic, a little daring, decisive and, at the same time, doubtful during his studies at university. The non-standard appearance of the actor reflects the versatility of his hero: sometimes funny, awkward and funny, and sometimes bright, sharp and attractive.
The hero of Rafe Fiennes turned out to be withdrawn, lost and lonely, first of all, mentally. Fiennes’s play is angular and homogeneous, reflecting the changes that have occurred over the years with Michael, both external and internal. The striking difference created in the types of the protagonist, at different periods of his life, clearly and vividly shows the resonance that the events shown in the film caused in his soul.
The film was shot in the best traditions of the genre: good stylization for different time frames, a beautiful picture, interesting angles and plans of the actors, a lot of detailed symbolism. Striking with its pulling emptiness and gloom, the footage in which the main character walks around the concentration camp; with dynamic tension, episodes in court are filmed; the moment in the cemetery looks peaceful. Of course, it is worth mentioning the work of stylists, thanks to which Kate Winslet literally took a ride in the time machine. In general, the picture turned out to be very atmospheric and heavy, but at the same time interesting and intriguing - you look at it in one breath.
As a result, the film turns the mind with its originality and strong psychological overtones. The question of accepting people as they are and not accepting themselves, because of a mistake in judging others, merge together in the picture “Reader”. Is it harder to forgive someone else or to forgive yourself? . .
Looking for an answer, the main character begins to read books on a dictaphone, meets with his past and, later, shares his secret with his daughter. The main character strives to get rid of the greatest shame in her life, seeks emotional response, understanding and love in the only dear person and, realizing her loneliness, commits certain actions. And the viewer learns to listen to his heart.
9 out of 10
Who are you, Hannah Schmitz?
Her life could have been happy and carefree; everything could have been different, but she was living at the wrong time. Is Hannah Schmitz special? Not at all, not at all. She could very well be your roommate, or just any woman in the gray crowd of people sweeping the streets. Every man is multifaceted: he has both an angel and a demon.
Who is Hannah Schmitz to us first? This is a kind woman who did not pass by the suffering man who helped him. It's simple and easy to hold. What happens then? Is she possessed by passion? Short-term attraction? Or maybe she is just floating along the current that life is guiding her. She is lonely, and then appears "Baby", young, ardent and passionate, able to dispel the boredom of gray days. And even more, able to lift the veil of the mystery of books: able to go with her on dizzying journeys through their pages. Or maybe he didn’t ask her about anything from her past. Hannah is hardworking and serious about her work, she is given a promotion, but it does not please her at all, even more - it even scares her. Why?
She's leaving. She's throwing "Baby." Why? He suffered because he gave up everything for her. She was more important than her friends and family, and she just left. Who is she after that? Who was it better for, her or him? Impossible love? Or did she just lose her passion and get bored? Does Hannah understand what she did to the poor boy's life?
Where will he see her again? A waitress in a cafe, or maybe walking in the park with a couple of their kids, because they have to “Baby” and Hannah will meet again. He will see her in court, in the dock. But how? What could she have done? There's nothing special about her, she's just one of a huge gray mass of people. Turns out she could. It affects the time in which she lived, wartime, the time of concentration camps, the time of which everyone is so diligently trying not to think. She was offered a good job: to be a warden in a concentration camp, to leave the factory. She was hardworking and conscientious in doing everything she was entrusted with, and now she is being tried for it. They are being judged for things she never thought of before the trial. “Should I have stayed in the factory?” she asked the judge. For her, it was simple: there was work and there were orders to follow. It is necessary to explain in court such simple things as that it was necessary to send people to their deaths every week because new people came; that during the fire it was impossible to let people out of the church, because there would be turmoil and confusion, which the guards could not cope with, although they should. What is simple for her is shocking to others. She does not try to protect herself, the only thing she blames herself for, which she is ashamed to admit, is her illiteracy. Everything else is ready to accept and endure.
Who are you, Hannah Schmitz?
Are you a weak-willed servant? Are you stupid and heartless? No, no, no. This film shows human nature from all sides. Hannah Schmitz is a living person, woven from contradictory entities. How diligently she always washed and washed the “Baby”, as if she washed away the past, washed away all annoying thoughts and thoughts. Had she lived in peacetime, Hannah would not have been the cause of so many warped or shattered lives. And so... Life presented her with too complex dilemmas for which she was not ready and chose the simplest.
And what about Michael, what about "Baby"? His life is some scattered pieces, ineptly glued together. The film itself reinforces this impression. Why didn't he save Hannah during the trial? Afraid to show you knew a criminal? Or maybe the wound, which never healed, began to bleed more, and Michael decided to take revenge on Hannah? Or did he just not understand who Hannah Schmitz was, perhaps she deserved to be punished? He thought he knew her. There are so many things she didn’t say.
Yes, for me it is a really strong and interesting film. He talks about the important, his characters are unusual in that they are frighteningly real. Of course, this is due to the excellent performance of actors who embodied such complex, multifaceted images. No one else like Kate Winslet and Rafe Fiennes could have done that. “Reader” conducts a dialogue with the viewer, he again and again asks him questions that conceal the answer. But everyone who watches this film will have their own answers to them, because everyone will understand the characters in their own way, will feel the time of the story. For me, there is only one question: