Not great, but nowhere near as bad as it is being made out to be

Rating: 7/10 (17 February 2009)

Like almost everyone, I was stunned on January 22 to find that The Reader was nominated for Best Picture. Not just because it was in and the likes of The Dark Knight, Gran Torino and Revolutionary Road were out, but because it seemed like the nomination was almost out of nowhere. Controversy about the nomination brewed, but obviously, nothing is going to change it. So with an intrigued mind, I went in expecting the worst movie ever made about the Holocaust.
A young Michael Berg (David Kross) is ill, and is helped by a woman named Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet). She is young, but is about double Michael's age. He recovers in bed for months, and goes back to Hanna to thank her for her help. Shortly after, the pair begin a lustful affair that lasts only for a summer. Years later, as Michael sits in on a trial against female Nazi guards, he is shocked to find Hanna among the group.
The film does a fairly adequate job jumping between this core story and the older Michael (Ralph Fiennes) remembering it and the fallout that came afterwards. He acts almost as a narrator, but more of an outsider looking into what his life was and became as the years went on.
To say the film is a Holocaust film is not accurate. Sure, Hanna goes on trial for being a Nazi guard during the war, but outside of these scenes (and minor, haunting scenes in Auschwitz), the film takes place almost entirely in Germany well after the war. It is obviously easy to classify the film as a Holocaust film, but it spends more time dwelling on everything that came after than it does even mentioning the events that transpired. It is an intriguing angle, and one that does not come around too often in mainstream cinema.
But the crux of the film is in the love story between Michael and Hanna. Seeing these two lovers passionately making love is at once just as beautiful as it is creepy. Director Stephen Daldry and the masterful Roger Deakins use very soft angles to express the feelings these two have for each other. And even with the immense amount of nudity, it is very tastefully done. A lot of time is spent lingering on the naked, imperfect flesh of both actors, and it helps to express the emotional hold these two have on each other.
Unfortunately, it never seems to be explained why the pair gets together in the first place. We understand some of the motivations, but we never have a clear idea why Hanna would risk so much by having an affair with so young a man. In fact, the first scene the pair has that involves their love is jarringly unbalanced. It is powerful enough to evoke an immediate response, but just seems bizarre later on. Their relationship is vaguely acceptable (albeit slightly disturbing), but it hinges on so little that you wonder why these two have such a strong emotional bond. It almost seems weird to think, but with so much time spent on these early scenes, you would expect a bit more to be discussed and explained, as opposed to merely leaving it to the vices of Michael's older mind, remembering the majority of it as it happened.
Another unfortunate thing is the lack of development in Michael and Hanna. Their backstories are never really explained before they meet each other, and the most we learn about Hanna other than her "secret" is the bit about her being a Nazi guard. And even then, we learn very little of what she did, or why she did it. We get no explanations about what lead up to Michael's illness, nothing on how he ended up in law school, and even less on the events of his adulthood. We merely get mentions and vague ideas to help establish who he has become. These two are clearly well written characters, but not enough to make the audience feel like they were truly developed. There is too much of an enigmatic side to both characters that one will never feel satisfied with what is covered (even if it would have dragged the film out longer than it is already).
Relative newcomer Kross is fabulous in his role. He helps hold the film on his shoulders alongside Fiennes, but he delivers the bravest performance of anyone. Sure, Fiennes is great and very subtle in his role, but he is not the powerhouse that Kross is. Seeing him develop from a teenager to a young man is an exercise is astonishing, and seeing his emotional range makes me wonder why we have very little American actors that can pull off similar feats. He just seems to know exactly how to tap into Michael's psyche, and knows just what darkest depths this character feels he has gotten himself into. Watching him question his ethical judgment merely through facial contortions is worth a review all in itself. He has sadly gone underrated through the awards circuit, and it is really a shame. I can only hope he keeps it up with work like this.
Winslet is just as great as you have heard. Much like in Revolutionary Road, she is a character going through an existential crisis plagued by tragedy and heartbreak. She plays Hanna very coldly, only letting the audience in at a few points. She wants us to feel the character's pain, and she wants us to see her as the confused individual that she is. Her performance is strong, and her emotions even stronger. But she lacks the will to make this as devastating a portrayal as in Road, so it seems rather eerie that the Academy picked this role instead.
It's not great, but The Reader is not as bad as most have made it out to be. The story just needed to be as strong as the performances.
7/10.