Subtle and restrained, holding a little too much back; amazing performance from Winslet

Rating: 7/10 (24 January 2009)

There's no doubt about it  where American drama film-making is often very in your face, obvious and insistent, British film-making is far closer to the European faction in its elegant, delicate subtlety. The Reader is one such example of this impeccable English film-making, and benefits from the best England has to offer: Director Stephen Daldry, who was a long-time theatre director before moving to motion pictures recently, and who has previously directed two excellent films  the under-appreciated underdog story Billy Elliot, and the even more underrated cinematic masterpiece that is The Hours; screenwriter Sir David Hare, also a long-time theatre professional, in this case a playwright; Roger Deakins, who is one of if not the best cinematographer working today; and at least two of the best acting talents Britain has to offer, Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes. Literally nothing in the film is blunt: ideas and themes in David Hare's screenplay are very subdued and under-the-radar, the acting is not bombastic and melodramatic but rather restrained and calculated, the cinematography serves its purpose but for the most part doesn't particularly stand out (Deakins, who won an Oscar nomination for his work on the film, should have been nominated for either of the other two films he shot this year, Revolutionary Road or Doubt), and in all, I actually felt that it was this subtlety and restraint that really held the source material back from true greatness.
That said, the film does contain many elements that come together marvelously, starting out from the screenplay. Like another excellent script from 2008, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader's almost extreme and radical subtlety dictates that none of its rich, resonant, powerful themes burst out of its seams, but rather remain bubbling right under the surface. Many critical viewers unfortunately interpret this gentle, restrained subtlety and nuance as "lack of content" and "emotional coldness", but I actually felt that this was one of the film's greatest assets. From a distance, it may seem to the simple-minded that the film is about the Holocaust and the horrors that occurred in it, but that couldn't be further from the point. As evident in a very short and easy-to-miss scene near the beginning of the film, the true underlying message of the movie is about the dark nature of secrets, and the fact that sometimes, in order to keep secret something that we are ashamed of, we end up doing far more atrocious things than those that we are trying to hide. This message can easily be applicable to the Holocaust, in that because of the German people's shame that they let an atrocity of this magnitude happen on their watch, they didn't do anything to stop it in time. Then again, the message could also be applied on a personal, human level as well, and it is this universality that lends it even more weight and relevance.
In addition to the inherently rich screenplay, the film is also carried and elevated by its performances. At the center, and also rightfully attracting the most attention, is Kate Winslet's simply riveting, intricate and quietly heartbreaking performance. It's one of the finest acting moments of her undeniably illustrious career  Winslet is my favourite actress of all time and I don't think she has ever delivered a bad or even a mediocre performance; that said, this is definitely one of her shining moments, and aside from sporting an excellent German accent, Winslet demonstrates an incredible ability to embody her character, who is so caught up in her own shame, both for things she had no say in but also for atrocities that she participated in by choice that she has become a closed shell, hiding all of her feelings behind a pale sheet of glass, although she lets just enough of them seep through her eyes to give us a hint of what's bottled up inside. It is easily one of the best performances of the year. Also worth mentioning are the two actors portraying the young and old versions of the protagonist Michael Berg, David Kross (young) and Ralph Fiennes (old), both of who deliver stellar performances for entirely different reasons. Kross is wonderful in showing the transition from the youthful, lively, passionate Kross to the jaded, introverted and emotionally distant Kross, emotionally damaged by his unrequited love for Winslet's character, Hannah Schmitz, who one day just disappeared after their whirlwind affair one Summer. And Ralph Fiennes is remarkable in his portrayal of the older version of Berg, by now completely world-weary, isolated from everyone around him and emotionally cold and dysfunctional. It is another one of Fiennes' immaculately subtle performances that, although thoroughly excellent goes completely unnoticed by awards circles.
The Reader is a good film, but not a great one. It's subtlety and restraint both in its screenplay and in its performances is terrific, but ultimately I felt that the film may have held too much back, keeping us not quite riveted by the plot or characters, as intricate as they are, but rather more objectively but distantly interested. Although a definite beneficiary from excellent performances, in particular Kate Winslet's enthralling, haunting portrayal, The Reader is also somewhat lacking in its more technical aspects, and while a good, entertaining and interesting film, I can think of at least five other films from 2008 more worthy of the coveted Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards than The Reader.