The Reader

It’s tragic to think that many of world’s countries have been attached to some form of historical atrocity. Whether it be something they experienced firsthand or worse yet, been the ones to cause said atrocities, it’s not easy to look back at certain parts of one’s own history and imagine what drove people to do such heinous things, and one country that undoubtedly suffer this guilt is Germany. While no longer facing said issues and every country which took part in World War II has something to be ashamed of (whether they were on the allied or the enemy side), the German population definitely still feels the sting and poison that Adolf Hitler left on them due to his insane Nazi ideology and massacre of the Jewish community, actively causing a global catastrophe that shook the world and forever stained a portion of human history. For the future generation who had nothing to do with it, it’s an event that has unfortunately left a mark on their country, to the point that there have been books about the Holocaust that specifically target those that came after (who are titled as Nachgeborenen). This sub-genre of books known as Vergangenheitsbewältigung is what the 1995 novel, The Reader, written by German law professor and judge, Bernhard Schlink, falls under. Being a story that explored the complex thought-process that the younger population of Germany struggled with in the aftermath of World War II, it was well received and was later adapted into a movie in 2008, being a co-production between the U.S and Germany that starred big name talent like Ralph Fiennes and Kate Winslet. While not being remembered by most, its failure in missing the mark in its adaptation is at least worth dissecting. In 1995 Berlin, Michael (played by Ralph Fiennes) is a reserved man who avoids most women after a childhood affair greatly changed how he viewed relationships, leaving him widowed, divorced, and estranged from his daughter Julia (played by Hannah Herzsprung). Flashing back to 1958, a teenage Michael (now played by David Kross) is assisted by a tram conductor named Hanna Schmitz (played by Kate Winslet) after he falls ill with scarlet fever. After recovering, the two begin a sexual summer relationship despite their age difference, as Hanna enjoys hearing Michael read, and this continues until one day, Michael finds that Hanna has disappeared without a trace. Eight years later while Michael is attending university to become a lawyer, he unknowingly finds himself taking part in a trial where Hanna is one of the defendants, being changed with war crimes as an SS guard for leaving 300 Jewish women and children to burn to death in a locked church. Knowing that her illiteracy could help her case, yet also finding out that she is hiding it out of shame, Michael waits to learn what will happen to this woman that he shared an unforgettable moment in time with, and how does he view her all these years later with her past fully revealed? Originally conceived after Miramax acquired the rights to the book a full ten years prior to the film’s release, The Reader received mixed reception upon release but did favorably at the box office and won the Best Actress award for Kate Winslet’s performance, managing to survive with at least a shred of dignity, despite being an overall mediocre picture.

The story has remained mostly unchanged from the original book, but has been revised slightly, changing the novel’s non-linear delivery of jumping back and forth in time in exchange for something more flowing and coherent. While the original novel was very well received in Germany and is held in classical status, this movie was not met with a similar response, and there are plenty of reasons why. The subject matter for this story has potential and poses an interesting question that ties into what this book’s sub-genre connects with, that being how the youth of Germany post-World War II dealt with the sins that their elders inflicted on an entire culture of people. These questions are complex, incredibly difficult and would vary depending on the person, which should make for some truly gripping material and questions, but unfortunately this story takes that concept at face-value only, never truly diving into the meat and moral ambiguity of this element and rather just uses it as a crux for an otherwise unrealistic, dull, and even disturbingly raunchy story. It’s not that the film outright ignores these horrific events or the questionable morality of this woman, but not only does it fail to present it in a complex or interesting manner, but it seems more focused on being an Oscar-baity historical drama or a tragic forbidden romance despite the icky circumstances instead of a thoughtful, introspective period piece. The film’s first act is solely focused on this relationship, and that is a huge mistake as it is uninteresting, emotionally lacking, and just unpleasant to see this underage boy have sex with a grown woman, especially because it has no impact on the rest of the story (they could have had a basic mother/son or mentor/student dynamic, and the same point would’ve gotten across). The directing by Stephen Daldry (who previously directed Oscar-nominated films like Billy Elliot and The Hours) is perfectly serviceable and at least makes the film technically sound from a pacing, acting and visual level, but his style comes across as very pandering and that can occasionally be distracting. It was also produced by Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack and Donna Gigliotti (people who either did or would produce and even sometimes direct Oscar-winning films), so it definitely had an agenda from the beginning, and one that did end up paying off somewhat, so it wasn’t a complete misfire even if it adds to the tone-deaf nature of this picture.

The main characters feel like they are fashioned to represent the people these stories are targeting, that being young people that have to face the consequences of those older than them (Michael), and those of the older generation who either wish to forget this tragedy and move on or live with their mistakes and face the consequences (Hanna). There are a few side characters doted around the story, but none are particularly interesting or given enough dedicated time to leave an impression, with the film mainly deciding to stay focused on the two leads. While this should be fine, since the film spends so much time on the awkward romantic aspect of their connection rather than their dualling perspectives on the war, there’s no time to dissect these two viewpoints. Michael barely feels like a fleshed-out character, rather just a surrogate for the story to throw plot points at. This is given more leeway in the novel where it makes sense from a reading standpoint where they need an audience surrogate to help process what’s been said, but in a movie where he should be given more of an identity, he leaves no impression and the acting from both David Kross and Ralph Fiennes doesn’t make up for the limited writing and zero characterization. The only performance worth recognizing (as well as the only truly great thing about this film as a whole) is Kate Winslet as Hanna, as she does a very good job portraying this troubled woman’s conflicting mindset and thought process very effectively, disappearing into the role a way that doesn’t feel attention-hungry or overplayed. Winslet is a very natural performer who is known for portraying characters with rougher edges to them, and while this certainly isn’t her most memorable performance, it is a very strong one and did earn her that illustrious award. With that said, the actual character of Hanna is horribly done. For a woman that has done some truly despicable actions, the movie is weirdly sympathetic to her, and it doesn’t do a good enough job either portraying her positive side or even showing what she’s actually like. None of her past interactions give the audience an idea of what she was like as a person (outside of being comfortable with having sex with a minor, so there’s that to think about), so it’s hard to determine whether she is really evil and just hid it, or not evil but did questionable things. The movie and this character aren’t written well enough to properly convey this complexity and it ultimately ruins the message behind this story, which is a massive failure on its part.

For a movie all about Germany and coming from a very successful German book, it is bizarre to see it portrayed in English with few to no German performers, but considering it was the author’s insistence that it be done in English, it doesn’t result in any issue. It doesn’t feel like it ruins anything by being in English, with the only thing that gets distracting being when an actor can’t pull off the accent (which Ralph Fiennes unfortunately cannot do), but considering the story itself feels so instrumental to German history and the German perception of WWII, it’s a little bizarre to see a film based around that event told through the lens of very British individuals (even down to the writer and director). The writer for this film was David Hare, who was an English playwright and screenwriter who wrote for films like Damage, Plenty, The Secret Rapture, and The Hours. Considering the narratives he created and the tone he often puts in his stories, it makes sense the film is presented and written in the manner that it is, often being unable to properly convey or execute these real-world conflicts and harsh realities in a way that feels effective without getting bogged down by needlessly graphic and raunchy material. With that said, at least the film managed to get some nice shots of Germany through the lush environments. You can tell that the movie was shot in Germany through the architecture and landscapes, and there are some decent shots of the countryside and small-town locales presented by directors of photography Chris Menges and Roger Deakins, which gives the movie a nice pristine atmosphere, which is also nicely paired against the more cold, stone-heavy look of the film when it gets a bit more somber. The film also has some decent montages edited together by Claire Simpson and even a musical score by Nico Muhly that bring a professional cleanness to the production that can occasionally have shades of that Oscar-bait atmosphere, but thankfully doesn’t detract from moments where the visual storytelling is honestly not that bad (mainly during a montage in the last act).

The Reader has aspects that should’ve made it much stronger than it actually was, but it not only glosses over a subject matter that requires a lot more complexity and a stronger focus in order to be properly understood, but also ignores it in favor of a ‘romance’ that isn’t charming, isn’t complex, isn’t necessary, and only feels like an excuse to feel sympathy for someone who sees being illiterate as more embarrassing than leaving women and children to burn to death. The book is where a lot of these plot and character issues seem to stem from, so it doesn’t come out completely unscathed, but it doesn’t prevent this story from feeling any less underwhelming. A troubled past needs to be acknowledge in order for things to properly heal and Germany has managed to do that, but this story pretends to do that and instead says nothing worth remembering. As a movie, it is perfectly fine as it’s technically well-made and Kate Winslet is very strong, but overall, it’s not a story worth skimming the pages to get through.