Monday, January 12, 2009

The READER

“The READER” (Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes & David Kross)

I have mixed feelings about this film; story-wise it is very compelling but I was uncomfortable about the manner in which it was shown. I don’t want to reveal too much about the plot as that would spoil it for anyone that has yet to see it, so I’m going to sound mostly negative with this review since I can let you know what bothered me.
Winslet plays Hanna Schmitz, a German woman in her mid-30’s living alone in a small apartment, working quietly as a ticket taker on a tram. She meets 15 year old Michael Berg (Kross) after he gets sick on his way home from school & throws up in the alley behind her apt. building. She catches the infatuated boy spying on her as she dresses and for some unexplainable reason decides to ‘deflower’ the child. An illicit affair ensues. It would have been easy to convey this act of pedophilic rape without the use of graphic nudity, yet director Stephen Daldry decided to go all-out creepy & show gratuitous scenes of child molestation. Yes, the teenaged boy was an eager participant – it doesn’t make what Hanna did legal or moral. I disliked her immensely & when it becomes apparent that she seduced the lad merely for her own sexual needs, it should sicken the viewer. Okay, if the nice looking older woman had decided to give the horny boy his first sexual experience ONE time, I could understand that – but to carry on an affair for months was disgusting. I was okay with it being part of the story, but I could not understand why show the sex repeatedly on screen. Yes, we understand they are having an affair – what is the point of showing them completely nude. If Roman Polanski was driven out of this country for having sex with a minor – why is a film such as this even allowed to be shown in a ‘family’ theatre? How could it not be rated MC-17?
I’m not a prude by any means, but I do have an aversion to adults that take advantage of & mar the lives of children under the age of consent. If this were an older woman having sex with a character in his early twenties, okay, show all the naked body parts you want, but considering the subject matter, I was quite appalled at how this film was shot; purposely meant to titillate with its several scenes of gratuitous nudity. It could have easily been told without it. In fact, it would have been a much better movie without it because I did enjoy the story, but I would NEVER recommend that any decent person should see it.
The story evolves into a fascinating & intriguing courtroom drama that tortures young Michael. Cut in between these scenes from the 50’s & 60’s are shots of the modern day Michael (Fiennes) as these are his memories we’re witnessing. The courtroom segment brings up some interesting questions that are never answered, one in particular should have been – that also weakens the over-all effect of the film.
No, I can’t recommend this film, & yet if anyone wanted me to tell them the story, I think they’d enjoy ‘hearing’ the tale as much as I would in relating it – a great plot, with impressive acting by all involved (Even the normally horrendous Winslet gives a commendable performance) but - & anyone who knows me is going to think I’ve had a frontal lobotomy for saying this – I would have preferred the story had been told without the nude scenes involving a middle-aged actress & a ‘child’ actor still in his teens – it just wasn’t necessary & made me feel somewhat perverted for viewing it.& again, those who know me would say that I am a pervert, so it shouldn’t have bothered me at all. But it did. It’s the involving a child in sex scenes that I abhorred, otherwise, I’m pretty much game for anything any filmmaker wishes to throw at me.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I must say that I quite enjoyed the film. I saw it some time ago.
I wasn't too bothered by it, as I knew before seeing the film that David Kross was 18 and of legal consent whe he shot the movie.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your take on Winslet's talent.
She, along with Blanchett are considered two of the actresses of their generation. Winslet a five time Oscar nominee. I felt she was very good in Finding Neverland, Little Children, Quills, Iris ( as with Dench and Broadbent ) and The Life Of David Gale.

I thought her overall performance in The Reader to be deeper and more resonant than the role in Revolutionary Road.

She obviuosly was the clear winner last night winning both award acting categories. I was trying to remember if that's ever happened.

Anonymous said...

Movieluva, I have come to respect your opinion, & I have always been a champion of 'everyone is allowed to have theirs' But you can't be serious about Kate Winslet being 'very good' in The Life Of David Gale. To me, it was one of the worst performances I've ever had to sit thru - Laura Linney is so much better at acting than Winslet is. Cate Blanchett is a wonderful actress - deserving of any accolades that are bestowed upon her, but Kate Winslet's success baffles me. I liked her in 'Little Children' but that was such a great, original film it would be hard not to like anyone in it(From an acting standpoint, the characters were all flawed)
Being nominated for Best Actress isn't really that big of a deal - how many decent parts are there written for women in any given year? Not many - consider that master thespian Marsha Mason has been nominated multiple times as well & you begin to understand that if you get one of the 5 or 6 'major' roles written for women, you're going to get an Oscar nomination. Why a hack like Winslet keeps getting those juicy roles boggles my mind.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong... but I'm not (Because it's
MY opinion)
Luv Ya, Movieluva! Look forward to your next comment.

Anonymous said...

Come on now, Winslet is no hack. She has been congradulated by many of her past co-stars. Lauded and impressed. Also, she is highly sought after by many producers and directors in their projects. I think those top filmmakers might know just a little something about talent. I think of her in the upper echelon of actresses of the new generation. Just under the Streep, Field, Spacek era.

If you have a hack category I'd put Kate Hudson, Eva Mendes, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Zeta Jones in there, to name a few off the top of my head. Nowhere near the same league as say Blanchett, Swank and Winslet.

Two different groups of talent there.

Anonymous said...

Hack, hack, hack. She's like the little hatchet that could! & I've heard the 'the other actors that she's worked with speak highly of her' excuse so often it's lost all meaning - When have you EVER heard one actor calling another actor 'crap'? It just doesn't happen - but those of us who have the advantage to say whatever we want are allowed our opinions & I'd really like you to watch 'David Gale' again & tell me that was a 'very good' performance - because I thought she sucked royally in it. She's gotten better the past few years,
but for most of her career... HACK!
Excuse me, I had something in my throat...
Now I get to turn on Hillary Swank... Upper Echelon? Hillary Swank? Are you just going off the 2 Oscars, or do you really believe she's a 'quality' actress? Was SHE
that great in 'Million Dollar Baby'. or was that just the ROLE of the year that whoever played it was going to win? Did you see 'P.S. I Love You'? Most actresses win Oscars because of their roles, not because they're incredibly good at their craft. The Cate Blanchetts, Laura Linneys, Jodie Fosters & Tilda Swintons are the rarities that bring something to the table even in crummy movies. I'll never mock Helen Mirren, Susan Sarandon, Charlize Theron, Judi Dench, Ellen Burstyn, Emma Thompson, Emily Watson or Naomi Watts. There are plenty of fina actresses to go around - Kiera Knightly has shown she has range, but for some reason has stuck herself in a rut of playing the same type of role lately. Then there are the 'darlings' that have me shaking my head with one sub-par performance after another & yet they still get acting jobs & are lauded for their efforts - the Julia Roberts, the Reese Witherspoons & The Kirsten Dunsts, i.e.
Now, I could also name of a long list of vastly over-rated male actors as well so I don't mean to be picking on the ladies, but they happen to be our current subject. & as I wrote before - the women suffer from having lesser 'great' roles to portray.
On a different vein, I'd really like to get your opinion on this :
The other day Kate Winslet was on Oprah (Another stellar Oscar nominated actress, eh?) & Oprah
complimented Kate for having 'real breasts' & they high fived before going to break... It seems to me, a 'serious' actress would have been insulted by such a comment. Kate's 'hackness' came to the for when she laughed & allowed Winfrey to promote her tits as being one of the reasons she's a wonderful actress... I'd really like to hear a true movie lovers response to this, please. (My wife just says when you're on Oprah, you just have to go wherever she leads you, she's Oprah for God's sake!)

Anonymous said...

OK... obviously we totally disagree on Winslet's talent. This is the last I'll comment about her as an actress.

On that Oprah situation, your wife is right. It's her show so people have to just go with it. It's primarily show for women, and that's girlie talk about being enamored at another woman's figure. Females eat that stuff up ! Plus, Kate has no problems with showing skin in her movies ( obviously ) She has been naked in lesser budgeted type films.

Like I said, I thought she was also impressive in Holy Smoke, Heavenly Creature's, Hideous Kinky with Harvey Keitel, and Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson.

A " hack " wouldn't be the youngest actress of all time to garner the most Academy Award nominations for her age. She has been handpicked by some great filmmakers to be in their movies, Ang Lee, Stephen Daldry, Marc Forster, James Cameron, Alan Parker, Richard Eyre, Michael Apted, Philip Kaufman and Kenneth Branagh. I'm pretty sure those guys have a little clue into what good acting and talent is or they wouldn't cast her if they thought they could have got someone better for the role.

Anonymous said...

Oh...I forgot. Even the actresses you say you'd never mock, have had their stinkers, such as Charlize Theron in Trapped and Aeon Flux, which was very hard to sit through. Or how about Emma Thompson in Junior and Nanny McPhee, Susan Sarandon in Speed Racer and Alfie, Judi Dench in The Chronicles Of Riddick ( what was she thinking ) Ellen Burstyn in the horrible Wickerman. She was cringingly bad in that. Naomi Watts in The Ring 2 ? Bad. Jodie Foster in The Brave One and The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys ( does she get a youthful pass for Foxes ? )

As for Hilary Swank, I thought she was very good in Boys Don't Cry and as for the role in Million Dollar Baby, I feel Hilary gave Maggie a sort of believable naivity to the character but yet a spirit to it as well. She is definitely an actress that has chosen some questionable projects, but I have seen her be good in bad movies, so she has that talent.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Movieluva, you've seen a lot of crap in your life, haven't you?
Trapped(I've never even heard of) Junior, You went to 'Speed Racer' & you have the audacity to say I don't know 'talent' - what were you thinking? (I write that with a grin on my face) & CHRONICLES OF
RIDDICK? - Please tell me you lost a bet & were forced to see that!
No, I never said every talented actress gives a great performance everytime - I centered on Winslet in 'David Gale' because you mentioned it as a very good performance & in my opinion, it was one of the worst I'd seen, so that even when she does a decent job, such as "Little Children" & "The Reader", I'm always reminded how awful she's been in the past. By the way, I've never seen 'Finding Neverland' or 'Iris'
& 'Quills' was just a train wreck by everyone involved. Hopefully we can become of like minds again with 'Defiance'!

Anonymous said...

Wow, Kate Winslet gets a acting nomination for The Reader instead of what she had been currently been nominated in the supporting category for this role. I actually agree with this perforamce over the one in Revolutionary Road, which she is also good in, I just feel her in The Reader a more multi facted character. I disagree with it getting a Best Picture nomination though. I read where they really seem to love Stephen Daldry. That he's 3 for 3 in his movies and himself being nominated Oscar's.

But it doesn't surprise me as the Oscar's always toss in that one arty type film that didn't make any money and most people didn't see. Doesn't matter though, it's not beating Slumdog Millionaire.

Anonymous said...

I'm in the 'Benjamin Button' camp. Like I said in my review - I felt I had seen something special after viewing it even though the story wasn't overpowering...