I was predisposed to hate “The Reader.”
I kept reading snarky things about the film (on Slate, film critic Dana Stevens retitled the film “Boohoo, I Bonked an Illiterate Nazi”), and when a Jewish friend sent me an e-mail denouncing it, I wondered whether “The Reader” might be the worst best picture nominee ever. Trouble was, I hadn’t seen the film, which also received nominations for actress (Kate Winslet), director (Stephen Daldry) and adapted screenplay (David Hare). Obviously, “The Reader” is a film an Oscar completest like me has to see, and so I set my misgivings aside, vowed to keep an open mind and headed to the theater.
At first, I was pleasantly surprised. “The Reader” is the sort of film that benefits from low expectations. It's a handsome film — the kind the Academy loves to honor. It features fine performances, not just from Winslet, as a former Nazi guard, but also from David Kross and Ralph Fiennes. It’s capably directed — for the most part, Daldry knows how to frame scenes, move action along and deploy his actors for maximum effect. (Although, after this film and “The Hours,” I wish Daldry would give the serious literary adaptations a rest, and make a film in a vein similar to his debut, the charming “Billy Elliot.”) I never felt bored during “The Reader,” and I was always interested in what was going on. It was only after the film was over that I began to ponder whether the world really needs a movie about an unrepentent Nazi who discovers the joy of reading.
The film involves a 16-year-old boy who gets sick on a tram in post-war Germany. A tram worker (Winslet) comes to his aid; three months later, when the boy has recovered from scarlet fever, he visits Winslet, and the two begin a passionate affair. Winslet asks the boy to read aloud to her, and he reads her books such as “Lady Chatterly’s Lover” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Film.” Flash forward a few years, and the boy is a law student, observing a trial with his classmates. He hasn’t seen Winslet in years, but lo and behold! SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW ONE OF THE FILM’S SO-CALLED SECRETS! There she is, on trial for Nazi war crimes.
“The Reader” wants to be a serious and provocative examination of post-war guilt and anxiety, as the boy realizes that the love of his life has done monstrous things. But the film dances around these issues; it’s confused and trite, when it should be hard-hitting and precise. For one thing, “The Reader” seems to be making excuses for Winslet’s character. We discover SPOILER ALERT! AGAIN! that she cannot read, and there’s some sense that this information, if brought to light, could help her case. Winslet does a good job of humanizing her character, but the larger question, I think, is whether we want to see a more humane portrayal of a Nazi war criminal. She can’t read — well, so what? Does that excuse what she did? Does it somehow make her a victim, too? Should we feel sorry for her? The film doesn’t seem to know how to answer these questions. Instead, it shows her learning to read in prison, and writing letters to the boy, who is now an adult who sends her taped recordings of her favorite books. Well, that’s nice. But I felt a little uncomfortable with the whole thing.
The film’s other big flaw is its beauty. “The Reader” is always nice to look at — it deserves its cinematography nomination — but is beauty really what you want from a movie about post-war guilt and Nazi-era war crimes? Here are some good recent movies about Nazi Germany that are grittier, darker and more complex than “The Reader,” which is a good thing: “The Pianist,” “The Counterfeiters,” “The Grey Zone,” Downfall,” “Sophie School: The Final Days.”
I also caught up with the dark comedy “In Bruges,” which received an original screenplay nomination. Written by acclaimed playwright Martin McDonagh, “In Bruges” is distinguished not so much by its writing, which is clever and interesting but maybe a tad over-rated, but by the performances of its three leads: Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell and Ralph Fiennes, who doesn’t appear until midway through the film but steals the show as a foul-mouthed gangster.
Gleeson and Farrell both work for Fiennes, and are dispatched to the Belgium city of Bruges after Farrell accidentally shoots a young boy. I've seen my share of dark comedies, but I was still a little surprised at just how dark “In Bruges” is. The film is funny and entertaining, but also has serious things to say about honor, morality and redemption. “In Bruges” can't be faulted for ambition, but it doesn't always work, especially in its final scenes, where the characters do and say things I couldn't believe. Still, it’s enjoyable and, if nothing else, made me want to visit Bruges. What a cool-looking place!
Got a comment? Add one below or e-mail me at sfoss@dailygazette.net.
