'The Reader' is NOT a Holocaust Movie
If you are going to hate it, at least understand it
Back in January I wrote an article headlined "Is 'Slumdog Millionaire' Next in Line for Oscar Backlash?" and while there has been some mild backlash, which is probably better described as awards overexposure, it is nothing compared to the vitriol being thrown in the direction of Stephen Daldry's The Reader, which is most often referred to as Nazi porn, and today is called "The Worst Holocaust Film Ever Made" by Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler" featured over on Slate.
Perhaps Ron has overlooked one thing, The Reader is not a Holocaust movie. Sure, the Holocaust is part of the film and deals with a woman responsible for having a hand in the extermination of several Jews at Auschwitz, but the film itself is not about that.
To be extremely blunt about it, The Reader is about an idiot woman who doesn't know any better and the love one man has for her. She referred to her work at Auschwitz as her job and was even more ashamed of her illiteracy than the extermination of Jews. We aren't dealing with Einstein here folks, but it does bring up plenty of moral dilemmas.
Winslet's character asks the judge, "What would you have done?" during her trial. You could look at that question alone and find enough conversation to satisfy an hour's worth of discussion. The obvious answer would have been to free the people from the burning building in question (duh), but instantly someone could say you would be risking your life by doing so. I don't even think she was smart enough to consider something as harsh as death as much as she just didn't want to lose her job. You could also consider the fact she is being blamed for everything while the other women sit in their boxes pointing fingers.
How about the David Kross/Ralph Fiennes character? The woman he loves turns out to be a Nazi who killed hundreds if not thousands of people. Does that not mess you up? Love isn't turned off like a faucet and while Fiennes's character is paper thin, Kross's performance makes up for it as he is forced to sit through the entire trial. The fact she won't admit to her illiteracy causes him to have compassion for her even if he hates what she has done. This is not about asking the audience to sympathize with a Nazi as much as it is about watching the conflict that occurs inside Kross's character due to natural human response. The fact it even calls into question sympathizing with a Nazi is what makes it so intriguing to me, because the thought of sympathizing with what Winslet's character has done is unthinkable, but that is looking at the situation through our eyes, not through the eyes of the man that loves her.
I am not saying this film is deserving of a Best Picture nomination, but for Rosenbaum to call it the worst Holocaust movie ever is silly because it is not a Holocaust movie. Is it the worst movie about trollies just because Winslet's character worked on one?
Roger Ebert recently discussed this topic on his blog and concluded:
Is "The Reader" a "Holocaust movie?" No. In terms of its two central characters, it is a movie about lacking the courage to speak when we should. That's something I think we can all identify with.
I am not here to defend the movie on any such terms, just here to make sure the people hating on it either a) have seen it, b) know what it is actually about or c) aren't hating it solely because they don't think it is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Rosenbaum's piece is filled with such snark, passivity and deep seeded hatred it is impossible to even take it seriously as an unbiased opinion. For example:
True, she's unrepentant for the most part about allowing those women and children to burn to death. (Although we do see one scene in which it turns out she's saved some pennies in prison that she wants to be given to the children of the women she murdered—thanks!) But most of what we see of her prison experience is her excitement at her growing literacy skills. Get a load of those pages turning! Reading is fun!
The funny thing about it all is Rosenbaum's entire argument — I believe — speaks to the quality of the film. Movies such as The Reader are meant to evoke a response and make you think and Rosenbaum has certainly done both, even if it is contrary to the film's premise and is filled with hate.
I placed it at #10 on my list of ten best from 2008 so I obviously don't think it is worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but I'm not going to trump up some bogus excuse to hate it just because it got one.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 13 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Calling THE READER a holocaust film is like calling SCHINDLER'S LIST a film about weapons manufacture… totally incedental to the plot, the theme and the intent of the film. Obviously Mr. Rosenbaum went in to the film already biased against it and believing it should uphold his own opinions of the actions of WWII Germany. He also must not have paid very close attention to the dialogue, because it is brought up several times throughout the latter part of the film that, yes, most Germans were complicit by their inaction against the Nazi regime and, yes, the people involved should be held accountable. That the women on trial received lenient sentences is a matter of historical fact, not the filmmakers subversive desire to acquit war criminals. It's a story, set in a time of social and emotional upheaval as a means to mirror the personal relationships of the main characters.
If Mr. Rosenbaum thinks we should keep the holocaust 'off-limits', or only mention it in terms of bleak documentaries and jittery archival footage of the atrocities commited during WWII, it will certainly fade into historical obscurity like the Holy Crusades, the Phillipine-American war or the Circassian genocide perpetuated by Czarist Russia in the 1800's… Now they are all just numbers jotted in history books, very few actually understand the loss of life or historical significance of those massive slaughters. Yet some people insist on relegating the holocaust to the same kind of untouchable legend that will weaken, not strengthen its impact for future generations. Why not get up in arms over films featuring that take place during the Civil War? Isn't GONE WITH THE WIND belittling the loss of 700,000+ lives?
Thank you very much Brad for your post. It's so silly that people would dislike this movie simply because it is nominated for Best Picture, while other much heralded pictures (don't even have to mention names here) aren't. Movies exist by themselves, not because of Oscar nominations. Some people may say that some pictures are Oscar-made, but what matters is what you see onscreen. Calling "The Reader" a "Holocaust movie" is reducing its power on so many levels… How many movies these days can make you think as this one does?
Thank you again, Brad.
Thank you.
Brad-The critics always speak too much coz they were born to do that….let them do that…but yes Brad the questions raised in this movie that you talked about in your ten best of 2008 list and through this article makes this movie special…that's why i having this feeling in my mind that it can make some upsets in Oscar nite…..u never know….what do you think Brad???
I still have to see it but from what I know this is indeed NOT a Holocaust movie.
You could actually see it as a good lesson because it shows the nazi's were people.
They had personal lives, they lived and loved.
It wasn't a special breed or different species of human.
It shows what normal ordinary people are capable of.
I think thats part of Kross's conflict he know he knows/loves a human being that turns out to be a monster at the same time.
Like Brad said: "Does that not mess you up?"
I saw this movie last night and hope sincerely that it gets proper recognition at Oscar time. Terrific performances, excellent script and direction, a great production. If a film keeps me thinking the day after seeing it, it's done its job. The illiteracy angle did not hit me at once, and introduces the conflict in Michael Berg I initially overlooked, namely that he was in a position to furnish evidence that Hannah could not possibly have written the report that condemned her, being illiterate. So he also was guilty of not acting to save someone else. I do not know who Rosenbaum is, but he appears to be so paranoid about Holocaust issues that he cannot be objective about any related work. For me, the movie's real theme is the common vulnerability of all humans to life's pressures and pain, and what they do to us.
I want to watch "The Reader," and chances are I'll like it quite a lot. But I'm STILL mad that it slipped into the Best Picture nominee slot that should have gone to TDK. I wouldn't be as made if it had been "Revolutionary Road," or even "The Wrestler" (which I plan on never watching ever), because those at least had the buzz for it, and I was bracing myself for them beating out TDK. But "The Reader"? Why, Academy, why?
I'm sorry, but this is a Holocaust movie. The Holocaust is central to the plot. Take out the Holocaust and you have a very different movie for that reason alone it is very misleading to say that the horrible events were merely "incidental".
Holocaust movies are an Academy favorite so this is why there is this spin campaign to persuade the public that the movie isn't something it is.
This movie could easily be subtitled Love Stories From The Holocaust. This was a good movie,well written and acted, but hardly worthy of a Best Picture nomination.
Yes, it was a "holocaust movie", and its intent was to show the culpability of all the so-called normal Germans. A young law student expressed this when he confronted the professor and accused that generation of knowing about the camps at the time; of only pretending later that they hadn't known; and yet not killing themselves because of their culpability.
Hannah's ignorance wasn't that she didn't know what was going on; it was that she DID know, and didn't see anything wrong with it. She even asked the judges, who ask her to explain why she chose ten women each week to be sent to their deaths, "What would you have done?" and they do not, perhaps cannot, answer. (They are obviously old enough to have been adults in the Nazi era.) Because, what DID they do while Hannah & others carried out these atrocities?
It is this straightforward expression of how it happened that makes her so reviled by other Germans — because it exposes them; they try to conceal this truth. They adopt the pose that "we didn't know; if we'd known, of course we would not have gone along."
The movie doesn't make Hannah sympathetic. It shows how an extremely self-centered person, full of false pride, is fodder for fascism. It also shows that the lack of literature in people's lives can lead to an emptiness of character that is devastating — to the individual, and to the society as a whole. (Perhaps this movie is a warning to Americans in a country in which fewer people read serious literature than at any time in our history.)
"The Reader" is a holocaust movie, and a very good one for that matter. Stop throwing negative comments about it. You just don't know how to appreciate good work. Duh..
Is it only me but I saw The Reader lst night (and loved Kate Winslet) and realized I'd seen it before — not with this cast but the same story exactly. What was the originala nd when was it made? Was it made for TV or a cable and straight-to-DVD production?
D
Even though you are correct in saying The Reader isn't a holocaust film at its very core, it's impossible to deny the impact the broad subject matter had on Academy voters.
oh…it's such a "negative statement" that The Reader is not holocaust movie. If you said that, perhaps you must learn more about theme in movie and literature. Sorry, I appreciate any opinion, but your opinion is not provable