Comments on: 'The Reader' is NOT a Holocaust Movie

By: heavener7439

heavener7439 — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:37:52 +0000

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

By: Danny K.

Danny K. — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:47:53 +0000

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.

By: Dana Phillip Doiron

Dana Phillip Doiron — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:37:27 +0000

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?

By: carlon

carlon — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:33:38 +0000

"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..

By: spitfire

spitfire — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:26:22 +0000

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.)

By: arizonasam

arizonasam — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:37:49 +0000

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.

By: JM

JM — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:43:01 +0000

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?

By: John Sproston

John Sproston — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:01:35 +0000

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.

By: rattler76

rattler76 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:17:03 +0000

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?"

By: Abhishek-The Oscar Maniac

Abhishek-The Oscar Maniac — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:40:02 +0000

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???

By: Dan Tralder

Dan Tralder — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:36:33 +0000

Thank you.

By: Adriano

Adriano — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:49:44 +0000

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.

By: Axel Howerton

Axel Howerton — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:33:57 +0000

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?