Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:59 pm**

E.W.'s Dave Karger's second take on The Reader (2/10/08)

I first saw The Reader in the middle of November and thought it was, well, fine. I certainly liked and respected the film, but I felt that it was something of a flatline, without any sufficiently gut-punching moments (for the viewer, not the characters) to make it truly memorable. I specifically was looking for Ralph Fiennes, playing a man who unknowingly had an affair with a Nazi guard as a teenager, to have a killer "Oscar scene" near the end of the film, which he doesn't.

This past weekend, I decided to give The Reader a second chance. It's fascinating to learn which films grow on you with repeat viewings and which don't. This year, I enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire and Milk more when I watched them again, while my love for Frost/Nixon faded a bit the second time. (And I simply don't have enough time to sit through Benjamin Button again.) With The Reader, though, the difference was the most dramatic. This time, I found myself quite moved by it, particularly during Kate Winslet's centerpiece courtroom scene in which the film's surprising plot twist is revealed. By the end, I was a wreck.

Since then I've been asking myself what was different the second time. Did I miss something when I first watched it? Am I simply being swayed by the five Oscar nominations it received? I don't think so, but I do believe my shifting opinion has to do with the awards strategy for the film. Back in November, the Weinstein Co. was campaigning Winslet for Best Supporting Actress, meaning there were no lead-acting candidates from the film. So I watched it as if it were more of an ensemble piece, which it clearly isn't. With Winslet now firmly in my mind as a Best Actress contender, her performance really jumped out at me as the true anchor of the film. Though I remain a huge Revolutionary Road fan, I am in awe of what she was able to pull off in The Reader.

So do I suddenly think The Reader has a shot to top Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture? Not a chance. But I'm more convinced than ever that Winslet will win Best Actress next Sunday. And if the actress was at all disappointed that she didn't get nominated for her husband's film (it seemed like it when she declined to do any interviews on nomination day), she's certainly on board with her current campaign: She's set to appear at a luncheon honoring the film in New York tomorrow. It's been a punishing awards season for Winslet, but I'm feeling like it's going to pay off in the end.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:02 pm**

Damien wrote:Marco, I haven't read the book but from your posts and the posts of other people who have, I take it that the novel is largely metaphoriacal, whereas the movie is simply the story of two individual people, and in the movie one of those people makes no sense at all -- and she doesn't seem to be a stand-in for the German sensibility at all (although she is dumb and aggressive in the way that German are often portayed in farces).

SPOILER

The novel IS the story of two individuals, but these two human beings also mirror the complicated, controversial issue of Germany's past, and work very well as a metaphor of the "new" Germany's still unsolved refletion on its Nazi period. So in the novel this woman's refusal to admit what she feels is her terrible flaw is understood by her former lover, who's of course as German as she is, and, through him, by the reader - as a question of pride, of a very German kind of pride, a tough, excessive, sick pride, that typical fear of showing any kind of weakness, the fear of "shame", which, on a larger scale, was and maybe deep inside still is an aspect of the German psyche.

Having been often in Germany, I could understand this side of the novel, but I must say that anyone reading the novel wouldnt have big problems with it. Now I'm even more curious to see the movie.

Edited By ITALIANO on 1232845930

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:14 pm**

Eric wrote:I thought Little Children was a worse movie than The Reader, but think she was definitely better in the former. As oft happens, Winslet's set to win an Oscar for one of her least impressive/most tricked-up performances. (Why couldn't she have just won for Sense & Sensibility back in 1995 and then we would never have had to be in this predicament?)

Damn, she was great in Sense and Sensibility. And to think she -- and Joan Allen -- lost to Mira Sorvino! One of the worst performances ever to win and Oscar, as well as one of the least distinguiished post-Oscar careers ever.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:11 pm**

ITALIANO wrote:Now, quite predictably most on this board only noticed Damien's reference to that young actor's body, but this is the part of his post that I found most interesting - and the one that makes me realize that the movie is a true failure.

I still haven't seen it, but I have read the novel. It's not a work of great art, but it's intriguing, intelligent, and it says alot about the Germans' complex relationship with their own past. And what Damien finds - in the movie - absurd is exactly the point of the book; it says alot not only about the "Nazi" character, but more importantly about that often discussed issue, the "GERMAN character". I agree - an Italian, for example, would have PRETENDED not to be able to read to avoid to be sent to jail. An American would have probably admitted it. But the main point of the novel is that a German would have been too PROUD to admit it. And that's one of the - many - reasons why all those terrible things happen.

If the movie really doesn't convey this, if it doesn't make this frightenly believable (and I have no reasons to think that Damien didn't get this) - then, quite simply, it miserably fails. It may be the script, or the direction, or - though I hope not - the actress, but there's certainly something very wrong there.

Marco, I haven't read the book but from your posts and the posts of other people who have, I take it that the novel is largely metaphoriacal, whereas the movie is simply the story of two individual people, and in the movie one of those people makes no sense at all -- and she doesn't seem to be a stand-in for the German sensibility at all (although she is dumb and aggressive in the way that German are often portayed in farces).

It's too bad the film wasn't made bya German director -- Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, perhaps. (Oh, what Fassbinder could have done with this material!)

Edited By Damien on 1232823251

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:02 pm**

I thought Little Children was a worse movie than The Reader, but think she was definitely better in the former. As oft happens, Winslet's set to win an Oscar for one of her least impressive/most tricked-up performances. (Why couldn't she have just won for Sense & Sensibility back in 1995 and then we would never have had to be in this predicament?)

She was definitely better in most of Revolutionary Road, with the exception of what I've seen called "the Stepford breakfast" sequence, in which I think she (and Mendes) badly misjudge just how dramatic an about-face Leonardo's character will accept no more than 12 hours after she's read him the ultimate riot act.

Edited By Eric on 1232820216

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:08 pm**

Well I know your feeling's involve past roles and nominations...I definitely fall more on the Eric side of her most recent nomination, and had blocked the entirety of it from my memory completely.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:54 am**

Wow, and I am so totally the opposite; I'm grateful that she's nominated for this and not Revolutionary Road!

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:50 am**

Big Magilla wrote:but it's Winslet's believability as a woman of so many contradictions that makes it one of the year's best films and a deserving best picture nominee.

Really?? Really? In my world, I choose to believe you typing these ludicrous statements as a way to keep the debate going and make it not a (rightly) one-sided affair. Much to my dismay, not in my play world, I am quite certain you say these with conviction.

Not only do I find this movie to be quite crappy, maybe not the "It's Killing Me" status of Eric and Damien et al, but I hate that Kate is nominated here. My one saving grace was that I very much wish for Penelope's Goddess to get an Oscar or multiple, and for lead, not supporting. But my devotion for her wanes on a daily basis due to it being an Oscar for this and not Revolutionary Road.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:36 am**

ITALIANO wrote:
Damien wrote: It’s absurd and absolutely makes no sense that Winslet’s Hannah would be totally up front and matter of fact about everything she did in the SS, yet have such qualms about revealing that she couldn’t read, an admission which would have spared her a life in prison. But then again, this is a movie bereft of logic.

SPOILER

Now, quite predictably most on this board only noticed Damien's reference to that young actor's body, but this is the part of his post that I found most interesting - and the one that makes me realize that the movie is a true failure.

I still haven't seen it, but I have read the novel. It's not a work of great art, but it's intriguing, intelligent, and it says alot about the Germans' complex relationship with their own past. And what Damien finds - in the movie - absurd is exactly the point of the book; it says alot not only about the "Nazi" character, but more importantly about that often discussed issue, the "GERMAN character". I agree - an Italian, for example, would have PRETENDED not to be able to read to avoid to be sent to jail. An American would have probably admitted it. But the main point of the novel is that a German would have been too PROUD to admit it. And that's one of the - many - reasons why all those terrible things happen.

If the movie really doesn't convey this, if it doesn't make this frightenly believable (and I have no reasons to think that Damien didn't get this) - then, quite simply, it miserably fails. It may be the script, or the direction, or - though I hope not - the actress, but there's certainly something very wrong there.

But it does convey it. Anyone who doesn't get it is either not paying attention or has already made up their mind by that time that they don't like the film.

Most movies require a suspension of disbelief and this one is no different. What is difficult to understand is that a woman so in love with hearing the written word being read to her would not want to learn to read herself. Once you get past that hurdle, everything else makes sense.

Hannah is not only a proud woman she is a stupid one. Her pride forces her to make dumb decisions. Earlier she gives up her job and the boy she loves rightly or wrongly to disappear rather than take a promotion which will require her to read and write, something she can't do and won't admit.

I had a few problems with the film, mostly to do with some of the scenes involving Ralph Fiennes as the older Michael. I thought the framing was awkward and the ending a bit meandering, but all the scenes with David Kross as the younger Michael were riveting and understandable, as were all the scenes in which Kate Winslet appears as Hannah, both the young and old versions. The final scene between Fiennes and Winslet, where he completely misreads her, is Fiennes' best work in it, but it's Winslet's believability as a woman of so many contradictions that makes it one of the year's best films and a deserving best picture nominee.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:40 am**

David Kross got hard while shooting some scenes, that was pretty funny.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:26 am**

Damien wrote: It’s absurd and absolutely makes no sense that Winslet’s Hannah would be totally up front and matter of fact about everything she did in the SS, yet have such qualms about revealing that she couldn’t read, an admission which would have spared her a life in prison. But then again, this is a movie bereft of logic.

SPOILER

Now, quite predictably most on this board only noticed Damien's reference to that young actor's body, but this is the part of his post that I found most interesting - and the one that makes me realize that the movie is a true failure.

I still haven't seen it, but I have read the novel. It's not a work of great art, but it's intriguing, intelligent, and it says alot about the Germans' complex relationship with their own past. And what Damien finds - in the movie - absurd is exactly the point of the book; it says alot not only about the "Nazi" character, but more importantly about that often discussed issue, the "GERMAN character". I agree - an Italian, for example, would have PRETENDED not to be able to read to avoid to be sent to jail. An American would have probably admitted it. But the main point of the novel is that a German would have been too PROUD to admit it. And that's one of the - many - reasons why all those terrible things happen.

If the movie really doesn't convey this, if it doesn't make this frightenly believable (and I have no reasons to think that Damien didn't get this) - then, quite simply, it miserably fails. It may be the script, or the direction, or - though I hope not - the actress, but there's certainly something very wrong there.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:48 pm**

Penelope wrote:
Eric wrote:
Penelope wrote:
Well, it is a huge cock, so that's worth something, right?

If the movie was brave enough to just be an out-and-out porno, sure. But it has literary ambitions. Seriously, just give me Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons and fuck this shit.

Oh, please. Michael Lucas is ten times more pompous than Stephen Daldry could ever imagine.

One of my closest friends was in Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons. She's a theatre actress who has starred on Broadway amd had the Glenn Close part. At the time. Gus Maddox was her roommate (nice guy).

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:44 pm**

Haha, you're right. I was just pulling out the only porn title I assume most people would know. That said, no, a big underage penis does not change the fact that The Reader is stilted, portentous faux-art.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:36 pm**

Eric wrote:
Penelope wrote:
flipp525 wrote:
A twink with a huge cock? Is that what it amounts to?

Well, it is a huge cock, so that's worth something, right?

If the movie was brave enough to just be an out-and-out porno, sure. But it has literary ambitions. Seriously, just give me Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons and fuck this shit.

Oh, please. Michael Lucas is ten times more pompous than Stephen Daldry could ever imagine.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:23 pm**

The Original BJ wrote:I think the reason why Lena Olin's performance works is because that character essentially ridicules Fiennes in exactly the same way I (and I presume, many of us) wanted to critique the film.

Essentially The Reader has a character saying we shouldn't look for art in the Holocaust when this film tries so pompously (good choice of word, Damien) to be ART ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST, over-aestheticizing history and wrapping it in a tastefully award-winning bow without really confronting anything troubling about said history. Her line about not learning anything from the Holocaust is ironic given that this movie wants you to LEARN.

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, but I do think that Olin's sequence (as the daughter, given that she also played the mother earlier) is really the only halfway intriguing scene in the movie for what it says about the movie itself and, indirectly, the filmmakers' intentions.