The Reader

The Reader, just one in the never ending stream of holocaust films in constant release, has stirred up a substantial amount of controversy, primarily because of its Oscar nomination. I, for one, was floored upon seeing it nominated for Best Picture, let alone Kate Winslet for Best Actress. With numerous superior movies more accurately portraying the horror of the Nazi regime, this one chooses instead to show the legal aftermath, and leaves us with a new moral dilemma. Can those involved in performing the atrocities be either too ignorant or too naive to be considered responsible for their actions?

Winslet plays Hanna Schmitz, a single working woman who, through a chance encounter, begins an affair with a 15 year old Michael Berg, brilliantly portrayed in the first 2 acts by Micheal Berg. The movie takes too long to tell us too little; namely, he rushes to meet her daily after school and they fall in love, until one day, she disappears. Eight years later, now in law school, he is observing a war crimes case involving 6 Nazi female guards, one of which is Hannah. Secrets are revealed, and a question of moral ambiguity ensues. While the actions can never be justified, can they be at least understood?

Throughout the first 2 acts, there are flashes forward to an adult Michael, played by Ralph Fiennes, struggling to deal with the issues raised in the movie. When the offender, responsible of horrible crimes, is someone you love, are the crimes just as damning? Would a jury always be so quick to judge if they knew the criminal personally? How would it feel to be Ted Kaczynski’s mother? Better yet, his lover?

In many respects, this is not a holocaust movie. It is about those closest to the responsible, and the moral issues they face, and will still be facing, long after the perpetrators are gone. It does not glorify any actions, but does take an honest look at the aftereffects of those not directly affected by the Nazi horrors. Some serious questions are left unanswered; we never truly know why she turned down a promotion to take a new job, which might have helped us understand more about the character. I am giving nothing away here; the holes in the script do leave us needing more.

The Best Picture nomination does give it elevated expectations that The Reader never realizes. It is a solid film, and provokes thought and new insight, and nothing more. We sometimes forget that the nominations for Best Picture should go to the top 5 films out of the nearly 600 released in the U.S., and countless more worldwide. The Reader is a solid picture, but that’s all. Winslet, nominated for Best Actress, gives a strong performance in a role that has no need for complexity or depth. Spending the first 40 minutes naked does not make it Oscar-worthy, nor does the ability to tear up on command. Was this really one of the better performances of the year? I think not.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

From a male perspective, every so often we hear the name of the next “dreamy” actor, and the inevitable conclusion is that he is an actor in name only, used primarily to swoon women and their pocketbooks. About 90% of the time, this initial male reaction is dead on. In the case of Brad Pitt, it could not be more wrong. And The Curious Case of Benjamin Button gives ample opportunity for the star to show his entire range (except the brilliant goofiness displayed in Burn After Reading), starting with his make-up clad face as a young child buried in the body of an 80 year old (looks anyway, not the size. Explaining how a 5’10’’ man popped out of a woman would have been a challenge I would have liked to see) all the way to the white t-shirt wearing, motorcycle riding James Dean lookalike. He has a presence onscreen that grabs you, and despite playing nothing short of a science fiction character, we can relate to every emotion, and feel connected to him.

The problem, however, with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is that, well, it’s not very good. It is a simple story of a man born old and growing young, and a relationship that happens somewhere in the middle. Simple enough. The issue lies in that while the script tells us exactly what happened, filling holes admirably and even delivering a certain level of believability, it never lets us in on why we should care. Events happen, simple because he wandered into them. The writer, Eric Roth, fails to deliver the almost mystical, endearing quality that he so ably found in Forrest Gump, and the result is a movie that serves as nothing more than eye candy. The majority of the comment on leaving the theater will be wondering how it was nominated for Best Picture rather than anything actually happening on screen.

As much as Pitt’s Button draws you in, the opposite can be said for Daisy, played by a terribly miscast Cate Blanchett. The relationship between Benjamin and Daisy early on is not enough to explain the great lengths he later goes to find her, and when he does, there is simply nothing likeable about her. The moments between Forrest and Jenny as children explained the deep emotional connection he would feel throughout his life, but nothing in the first act does that here. Steps in the relationship simply happen, with no gradual lead up or explanation as to the suddenness of the action. Button loves Daisy enough to travel the world for her. Why? Because the script says so.

Certainly the performance by Pitt is worth the price of admission. Tilda Swinton (taking her seemingly permanent place in the Clooney/Pitt filmography) is excellent in a limited role as worldly woman broadening Button’s horizons, and certainly the art direction and costume design is impeccable. However, with the exception of an old man becoming young, which is not as big a part in this movie as you might think, this has all been done before, especially in the vastly superior Forrest Gump, a movie that still remains a constant in any dinner table discussion of films. It is unlikely The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will be spoken of 15 minutes after leaving the theater.