Printable View
One of the masterpieces of the contemporary German literature, "The Reader" of Bernard Schlink, has been turned into a movie by Steven Daldry, with Ralph Fiennes and Kate Winslet.
The novel is not only an extremely well-written one, but also deals among others with a subject very relevant to this forum: reading books...
You can watch the trailer here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/thereader/
Any opinion on the film or - even better - of the novel is welcomed.
I saw the trailer for this on TV it looks great. I loved the book and have to agree it is really well written.
It got some interesting criticism, and some of my friends disliked the movie, including one German literature specialist who studied the text, so I decided to avoid it.
On political grounds I deliberately have thus far shied away from the book, because I do not agree with what, from what I understand of it, it is trying to say.
Just out of interest what do you understand that it is trying to say? On second thought that actually might be against the rules JBI if it is political I am not sure.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I read the book in undergrad for a class and really enjoyed it.
If I remember correctly it involved a teenager born to the Nazi generation who begins an illicit relationship with an older woman. After he grows older and is attending law school, if I am remembering this correctly, he discovers during a trial he is observing for a class that his ex-lover is a former Nazi prison guard directly responsible for committing especially heinous acts. However, it is not certain she really commited these acts with evidence revolving around the fact that she cannot read, but she will not defend herself because she is embarassed by the fact that she can't read. Likewise, there lots of sub-issues: how the children of the Nazi generation responded to their parents, issues of literacy.
I don't remember anything specifically turning me off when I first read the book. What I especially thought was original and interesting is that we basically have a reverse Lolita story with a very different focus; by traditional laws, she took advantage of a minor. However, the twist being we have an older woman doing it to a younger male. And this plays out throughout the rest of his life, he is unable to have a successful marriage or relationship after that. I thought the book did a nice job at portraying that aspect.
At the risk of sounding trivial, I need to point out that you're missing a vital point of the discussion:
Who cares about conformity with the novel's plot, the inaccurate English rendering of the German title, the story's screenplay potential, its message, or the quality of the movie in general?! IT HAS RALPH FIENNES IN IT! Yummy! :D
I think the strongest point of the book is Schlink’s ability to apply a direct and even abrupt style of language for a quite delicate subject, without being afraid of “taboos” nor sounding excessively provocative. Then, the passages of “reading” are some of the best examples of a novel describing the magic of fiction literature. And, as Drkshadow03 correctly pointed out, the book does a nice job at portraying this passionate and awkward relationship between the two main characters.
I will go to see the movie today, though I know how I generally rate films that are based on good books... The reviews I read are somehow divided and Winslet performance is judged as mediocre (no surprises here).
If people are interested, I will drop a line after having seen the movie later today.
I read the book in both English and German and think it is wonderfuly crafted and provocative. To the "is Lolita porn?" crowd, you should read the first seduction scene of the 15 year old protagonist.
Will it make a good movie? I think it has potential and will certainly see it. I am usually disappointed in movie versions of favored books, but every once in a while (Cider House Rules, e.g.) I get a pleasant surprise.
I saw the film yesterday. It’s an honest effort to portray this complex relation between Michael and Hanna throughout the years, while it stays relatively faithfully to the atmosphere of the book. On the other side, it’s predictably impossible to bring forward this characteristic “directness” of Schlink’s style of writing. In order not to make the movie too heavy, the director had also to largely ignore some of the book’s aspects, such as the issue of the “common guilt” of post-war Germany. The “reading” sessions are inevitably short and Winstlet’s rather “schematic” and at times over-expressive interpretation results in the loss of some of the magic...
This being said, the film quickly finds a life of its own and the unusual and intriguing plot makes it interesting to watch – even for those who have read the book. The trial scenes are good and David Cross gives an honourable performance in a very difficult role. Then, there is the eternal issue of language: all German characters living in Germany talk in English, for obvious marketing reasons. But that’s another story
Kate Winslet won two Golden Globes 2008 the other night and one of them was as best supporting actress in “The Reader”. This strikes me for two reasons:
1. Her role in the film is not a supporting one, she is one of the main characters, the women the whole story revolves around.
2. Her performance is - in my view – rather mediocre, often altering Hanna’s character as portrayed in the film (as I wrote in a previous note). But, of course, this is my personal opinion and may be influenced by my general dislike of Winslet.
However, her success – maybe to be continued at the Oscar’s night (?) - will certainly made more people go and see the movie and – who knows?- also read the book...
I would have seen this film just after Christmas but the wife made me go along to watch Australia. :sick::sick::sick:- shoot me! Horrendous drivel.
I am 50/50 about going to see the film, which will probably be on my own if I do go, I’ll have to see, and I’m not inspired that much by it from what I have seen. Why is it called The Reader anyway, does he read a lot?
I find the book appalling, and the trailor looks awful. Appalling for reasons pertaining to the quality of writing, the message Schlink is communicating and the subtext of the novel.
The author’s style of writing is of course something very personal and depending on each one’s taste, so it’s normal that different people have different opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by S.MacConmidhe
However, in a philosophically (and politically) controversial book such as “The Reader”, the message can be easily misunderstood, or even altered, so as to fit each reader’s own views on the topic. It would therefore be interesting to clarify which is at your opinion “the message Schlink is communicating and the subtext of the novel”.
I am mid-stream into the book right now. Frankly, I'm resenting the fact that I have other obligations because I'd like to simply sit and finish the book as, thus far, I'm really enjoying it.
The prose is deceptively simple because the content deals with the smudging of established moral lines.
Hanna's repetition at trial of "what would you have done?" is very telling in context though I won't give anything away here.
I'm in a quandary as on the one hand I really want to finish the book and on the other I don't want it to be over. :)
I read it a year or so ago and liked it, although I'm not mad on it. I'd definately go to see the film! (: