Post-WWII Germany: Nearly a decade after his affair with an older woman came to a mysterious end, law student Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes) re-encounters his former lover (Kate Winslet) as she defends herself in a war-crime trial.

The film raises the question of whether we should judge someone by the law or rather "the laws of the time". And there is a big difference. Of course we know that killing is morally wrong, and those who sent people to death in World War II were morally in the wrong, even if they were only following orders.

But were they legally wrong? One could argue not. That is a difficult topic. Like the women of this film, those at the Nuremberg Trial were tried and convicted under laws invented after the war. Laws written by the winners. This makes one wonder: is it right to put someone on trial for something morally wrong, even if it was not legally wrong? And who should decide the laws? Had the Axis won, they could have just as easily declared it illegal to drop atomic bombs on innocent villages and then try, convict and execute Harry Truman.

Right and wrong is no easy topic.

Kate Winslet, I absolutely adore her, she's my favorite actress of all time. I still can't believe that she hadn't won an Oscar, her first nomination was in 1995 with Sense and Sensibility. Finally after 14 long years, she finally won the coveted award with the movie The Reader. I finally was able to see this movie the other day and it blew me away, I'm still debating if this really was my favorite Kate Winslet performance, but once again with a strong cast telling a powerful story, The Reader was definitely one of the best films out of 2008. So many holocaust films have been made, it's hard to make another that stands out, but we really haven't had a story where the Nazi guards were on trial. A lot of people debate if this movie is trying too hard to push sympathy on Kate Winslet's character, but my love for this film is to just show that they were human as well, hard to believe, but that our mothers, sisters, friends, whoever could have done something so shameful.

Michael Berg in 1995 Berlin watches an S-Bahn pass by, flashing back to a tram in 1958 Neustadt. A teenage Michael gets off because he is feeling sick and wanders around the streets afterwards, finally pausing in the entryway of a nearby apartment building where he vomits. Hanna Schmitz, the tram conductor, comes in and assists him in returning home. The 36 year old Hanna seduces and begins an affair with the 15 year old boy. During their liaisons, at her apartment, he reads to her literary works he is studying. After a bicycling trip, Hanna learns she is being promoted to a clerical job at the tram company. She abruptly moves without leaving a trace. The adult Michael, a lawyer, at Heidelberg University law school in 1966. As part of a special seminar taught by Professor Rohl, a camp survivor, he observes a trial of several women who were accused of letting 300 Jewish women die in a burning church when they were SS guards on the death march following the 1944 evacuation of Auschwitz. Hanna is one of the defendants. Stunned, Michael visits a former camp himself. The trial divides the seminar, with one student angrily saying there is nothing to be learned from it other than that evil acts occurred and that the older generation of Germans should kill themselves for their failure to act then. But Michael is conflicted on what to do, if to speak out on Hannah's behalf on some of her innocence in the murders or keep quiet.

This is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen, it was so incredible and just heart breaking. One of the things I respected about the film was the way they handled the awkward "love story" between Michael and Hannah, she's older, he's younger, but it's not even a perverted thing, so strange to say that. I don't know how to put it exactly, but their connection was real and in some sense they both needed each other. If you have the chance to see this movie, I seriously suggest that you take it, the powerful performances really make this film captivating. The story is so heart wrenching and painful, but was told so well. Kate now finally has the award she's deserved for so long and pulls in a terrific performance with The Reader.

10/10

This is a very strange movie in that there are MANY moral dilemmas and situations that clearly are unsavory--yet the film takes a completely neutral stance in presenting the plot. I am sure this offended some but it did make for a very memorable film. As for me, I am still not sure what I think about this strange style of film making.

The movie begins with a 16 year-old boy being seduced by a much older woman. The morality of this and their subsequent affair never seems to matter---it just is. During this time, the older woman (Kate Winslet) was often quite moody and the boy's welfare really didn't seem that important. Also, she would force him to read to him before they had sex. Why is an important part of the film--and frankly, though it was apparently supposed to be a twist, I figure this out immediately. However, this didn't spoil the film.

One day, Winslet disappears. Exactly why you really don't know. The boy grows and is now in law school. As part of one of his seminar classes, he and the class go to court to observe. The case involves some Nazi war criminals--and it turns out Winslet is among the defendants. And, the fact that she had other 'readers' finally makes the young man realize why. Winslet (this is NOT much of a spoiler) is illiterate. Yet, she is so ashamed of this, she is willing to accept a much longer sentence to hide her illiteracy. And, during her long incarceration, the ex-lover (now played by Ralph Fiennes) makes it his life duty to record book after book for her to enjoy while incarcerated. There's a bit more to the film than this, but I'll leave it up to you to see for yourself.

The movie has some excellent acting, though I did wonder why the leads were played by non-Germans--while some other major characters were German-speaking actors (like the Swiss-born Bruno Ganz). I wonder why they didn't just have Germans in all the roles. Perhaps they thought it was more bankable with Fiennes and Winslet. The moody music and direction were perhaps the best part of the film, however---very evocative and well done.

As for the plot, I cannot completely reconcile myself with the fact that the film appeared to possibly condone or was indifferent to evil. Sexual exploitation of a teen and the holocaust are BAD....REEEEAAAL bad! And that made me a bit uneasy, as I enjoyed the film and the odd plot. Also, I felt that it was a shame there was so much nudity, as I would love for teens to see the film--it would be great to show them to instigate discussions and provoke exploration.

A weird and unique film. Hard to really describe and one you may enjoy but also one that may prove too challenging--as I could really see this causing some viewers to become angry, depressed or too emotionally taxing.

By the way, was it just me or am I right that it seems that Fiennes' character wasted his life? And, interestingly, Fiennes also starred in the excruciatingly dull "The English Patient"--another VERY morally ambiguous film about the Nazis and moral choices.