Review: The Reader
Filed under: Drama, Independent, Theatrical Reviews, The Weinstein Co.

Opening in limited release this week with a wider release planned for January, The Reader has "prestigious arthouse drama" written all over it. It's an adaptation of a critically acclaimed German novel by Bernhard Schlink, but translated into English for wider appeal, and features a big dramatic performance from Kate Winslet in which we see her character over the span of decades. It's directed by Stephen Daldry and adapted by David Hare, who collaborated on another prestigious adaptation together, The Hours in 2002. This time, their movie explores German relationships that are affected, even decades later, by the Holocaust.
The movie is told as a flashback from the point of view of a middle-aged lawyer in Berlin, Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes). Back in the late 1950s, 15-year-old Michael (David Kross) falls ill on the way home from school one day, and is comforted and helped by a strange woman (Winslet). When he recuperates and returns to her home to thank her, a sexual spark flares up between them into an inappropriate but sympathetic relationship. They meet every afternoon, not just for sex but for reading -- he starts by reading her the books assigned to him for school, but ends up finding all manner of literature for them to share. However, Hanna is full of secrets -- she is even reluctant to tell Michael her name -- and the effects of her past and her secret-keeping are long-reaching and dramatic.
The structure of The Reader is rambling and hard to follow -- you think the movie is drawing to a close, and then you get 15 minutes more, making me feel impatient near the end of the two-hour film, as though there were too many endings. (I had the same problem with Changeling.) The frequent shifts in time -- Michael in the present time of the film (1995), an extended chunk of the film during his teen years, another long flashback as a young man, and then shorter sequences that skip three years here and five there. The narrative arc isn't quite clear enough for the movie to shift in this way without a slight sense of disorientation. It may be that the decision to keep the novel's narrative structure impacted the film -- I haven't read it, but descriptions seem to indicate that the movie is fairly faithful to the events in the book.
Like many end-of-year films, the performances are what makes the film most worth watching. Kate Winslet makes Hanna in the first flashback sequence impenetrable and hard-boiled and a bit fierce, but not without passion and sorrow and even flashes of happiness. In the second sequence, she's able to give Hanna's face a wonderful mask-like quality, older and even more opaque. Winslet is better when her character is younger, but at least she's believable as an older woman. I'm not especially fond of watching younger actors and actresses play much older characters -- I often feel like there's a giant sign over their heads proclaiming, "Look at my range! Give me an Oscar!" (And yes, she's nude in the sex scenes, and if you're fond of watching Winslet in the buff you won't be disappointed.)
David Kross hits all the right notes as the young Michael, both as a 15-year-old being sexually initiated by Hanna, and later as a law student who is faced with raw emotion and difficult choices when he encounters Hanna again. His law-school professor turns out to be Bruno Ganz, which is a pleasant surprise. He also resembles Ralph Fiennes fairly accurately, except that Kross has this delightful and rare radiant smile that you can't imagine coming from Fiennes' character ... which is kind of the point of the movie, so that's fine. Fiennes gets little to do besides pondering and flashing back -- his one big scene at the end of the film, in New York, seems to fall flat and didn't quite have the intended impact.
The Reader offers little in the way of surprise and innovation, but does challenge the audience to think a little differently about the Holocaust and everyone involved in it. Even so, it is a small challenge, the kind you ponder on the drive home from the theater, and then forget about in a day or two. This is more of a coming-of-age film than an historical drama. The performances from Winslet and Kross, however, are strong and powerful and fascinating, and add vitality and interest to a fairly by-the-book adaptation.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-19-2009 @ 12:52PM
jeff said...
THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST BORING MOVIES THAT I HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH SINCE BILL MURREYS LAST 2 HORRIBLE EFFORTS. TRASH!!!
Reply
2-15-2009 @ 4:20AM
Hannah said...
I think any movie can be boring, depending on if that particular movie has anything to say to you at the point of time that you are.
Something that make this movie prone to be condemned as boring is that it leaves whoever watches it time to think about what happens. Note the sparcity in dialogue, the amount of silence, the lack of overwhelming background music, and the sparce use of music over all. It is seldom you have time to hear yourself think in the process of watching it, usually you're just bombarded with words, music, actions, and left afterwards with an empty feeling (where you dread the coming of the everpresent question "What did you think of the film?" Because you just haven't had the time to process it. And as life moves on afterwards, you being bombarded with actions, words and music, you won't have time to think about it, and it won't last you too many days until it will be forgotten).
This IS the type of movie our generation will say is boring, because it asks us to think for ourselves, "truths" are not being thrown at us by the characters in the movie, it is philosophical and it shows us the TRUE complexity of life and our choices, which in a way may make us feel so inferior, anxious or just unsure that we block it out. Things which aren't given to us straight away becomes something we think that we don't need. Or is too cumbersome or timeconsuming to be worth the bother.
I may sound like this is preferable, but I too, am a fruit of this generation, and I too, felt frustrated and thoughtful and impatient by this movie, but I think it might just be a feeling of my frustration with my own life, my own complex thoughts and feelings with my own moral and ethical choices, and the fact that I seldom stop to think about them. Even though I know I should. Perhaps I just have to (airy fairy) be in the feeling of frustration and think about the things that this movie had to offer, the questions of utilitarianism, ethical determinism, human behaviour, and perhaps then start to think about my own life and choices.
3-10-2009 @ 4:12AM
christina said...
I think there is a mistake in this movie. It says Hanna was twice of Michael's age when they met (Michael was 15). However, during the trial, the judge asked her a few questions. One of them was the date she was born, it was 1922. Then later the date she joined the SS, it was 1943. So, if in 1943 she was 22 years old, how could she be twice of Michael's age? There is definitely an error here!
Reply