The Reader

I just finished watching The Reader, a film based on a novel by Bernhard Schlink. I have to say that I am left with an empty feeling that I just can't describe. It is a similar emptiness to the feeling I had after watching The Lover. I feel drained and hollow.

When this movie came out, talk swirled about the image of the Holocaust it presented, the impropriety of an underage sexual relationship, and the superb acting skills of Kate Winslet. So much focus was one Winslet and her character that I think most people missed that fact that this film actually delves most deeply into the character of Michael, her co-star, portrayed by Ralph Fiennes and David Kross.

A Wikipedia entry describes the story as dealing "with the difficulties which subsequent generations have in comprehending the Holocaust; specifically, whether a sense of its origins and magnitude can be adequately conveyed solely through written and oral media." I disagree. The Holocaust is not the focus of this story, and if one thinks it is, he or she is missing the mark. Additionally, the IMDB database tags the film with the line, "How far would you go to protect a secret?" And a great portion of the film is dedicated to answering that question. However, it also misses the mark. While it is easy to focus on the shock of Hanna's history, we have to remember that it is actually Michael and the struggle his character faces--not only with what Hanna did while working as a Nazi but also with the ramifications of their affair on his entire life--who is the underlying focus of the film.

Many people have lost this aspect of the film by becoming too caught up in the hollywoodization of the Holocaust to let themselves see and feel this underlying current of the film. Some will argue the film was about the redemption of a person who took part in atrocities, and others will argue it is about the realization that we do not know everything about those we love. While those elements are parts of the film, the bigger picture--when seen from Michael's perspective--is that it is a film on the consequences of our actions and the vulnerability associated with letting ourselves love. So while there's been much discussion about the portrayal of the Holocaust, about the post-war guilt of Winslet's character, and the realization of one generation's wrongs by another, those arguments focus too much on Hanna. In reality, The Reader is about just that: the reader, Michael. It is his plight we see, his pain we feel. And, through his story, we learn this story is about the disturbing realization that one choice can effect our entire life, a choice that may or may not be our own.

In The Reader, a choice was made in the first few minutes of the film: a rain-soaked Hanna offers to help to an ill Michael. Had that help not been offered, and had that help not been accepted, the ensuing tale, which is predominately about Michael, would not have come to be. During the entire film, we see Hanna's life through the window of Michael's life. We see the after-effects of their affair resonate throughout his years. Even though the majority of the plot is about Hanna, the emotion the viewer feels is for Michael and the fact that is whole life is framed by a single choice he made when he was 15 years-old. Hanna was the first woman he knew, and her lack of emotion and his coming to terms with her actions deeply scars him and still haunts him 40 years later. His entire view of women is effected by that solitary choice. We see that he cannot be open with girlfriends through the years, nor, we assume, his wife whom he divorces. He goes to one of Hanna's female victims, at Hanna's bequest, and blankly turns to her for an answer that isn't coming. He doesn't even trust his own daughter until the end of the film--and he only does so after he comes to terms with his feelings for Hanna.

Attention is obviously focused during the film on what Hanna did as an SS officer to the Jewish women she monitored and the harm she caused them. However, she also effected Michael's entire life by their one summer affair. Can the argument be made that she harmed him more than the women? It may be a stretch, but it is worthy of discussion. We see the torment he faces over the sudden loss of Hanna when she disappears. We see him struggle as he comes to terms with the horrors the woman he believed he loved committed. We see him fight himself to allow her to make her own choice, even though it hurts her. We see him come to terms with Hanna's lack of humanity. And we see him grieve her death. Yet, that pain Hanna causes him isn't his only suffering. Because of Hanna and how consumed he is with her, the ramifications of their affair effect him in his relationships with other women and ultimatley lead him to live a life not unlike Hanna's: while she is locked in a physical prison, Michael is locked in an emotional one--until he breaks free and reaches out to another woman, his daughter.

Once this film is viewed and digested, we forget about Hanna. We forget about Michael. Yet, we still have an emptiness. Why? It is the knowledge of what one choice can do. It is the deep fear of making a mistake that we all have. We wonder: is life predetermined? Are things meant to be? Is it fate? Is it God? Why do we follow the path we do? And how do we deal with regret when we make a decision that effects us the rest of our lives? To me, Michael's life is regret. He was an innocent, and he was more plagued by regret than Hanna, who had every reason to live with it every day. Whether she did or didn't face that regret is up to the viewer to interpret. Whether she was redeemed is up to the viewer. Whether she is forgiven is up to the viewer. Also up to the viewer is the decision of whom Hanna most victimized, was it actually Michael? Was it, in fact, the reader?

Further reading on the controversial nature of the film:
http://mjhblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-thoughts-on-reader.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2210804/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/02/the-reader-kate-winslet-film