The Reader

Reviews of The Reader (book and film)

The book

The Reader by Bernhard Schlink.

This was Shlink’s first novel, after spending many years as a lawyer. When a fifteen year old Michael Berg becomes ill on the way home from school, a stranger helps him out. After a winter spent with hepatitis, his mother sends him to see the stranger Finding his way into the house, he surprises her when she arrives home. Michael watches through the crack in the door, running away when she sees him.  On his return to see her, their affair begins.

When Michael next sees Hannah, he is a law student, and she is on trial for a war crime. During the course of the trial, Michael makes a discovery about Hannah  which provides a dilemma for him: can he reveal the secret to the judge?

When Hannah is sentenced to life in prison, Michael is haunted by guilt.

As time goes on Michael finds less meaning in his work as a lawyer. His marriage fails, but he then begins recording his favourite books to send to Hannah. He then learns that she will soon be released from prison, and visits her.

Shlink’s novel is a fine piece of writing, exploring the moral dilemas facing someone in Michael’s position. It speaks of many themes, chief among them fear of action/inaction and redemption.

However  a  drawback of the novel is that some events appear a little too perfunctory, as if they had to happen to make the story work.

The Reader (The film)

The 1995 film is directed by Stephen Daldry  with a screenplay by David Hare (who wrote the screenplay for the Hours, and many plays such as Skylight, Amy’s View and Racing Demons). It opens in1995 , on a morning when Michael Berg (Ralph Fienes) is preparing breakfast for himself and a woman with whom he has spent the night. Looking out the window, his eyes meet a tram, and he begins to recall events of his teenage years, in particular the relationship with Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet) .

The film recounts the  breakdown of the relationship, and Michael’s discovery of Hannah’s real past, and the consequences of the relationship for Michael.  We see the tension within Michael when he realizes Hannah’s secret, and his unsuccessful attempts to reconcile his actions in light of this information. We also see the breakdown in his relationships.

The  film ‘s plot plays out as a three act structure, and there is some superb acting by all concerned, and some excellent direction from Stephen Daldry.

Throughout the course of the movie we see the ebb and flow of Michael’s life, as he sometimes has control of what is happening, and other times does not. We see his guilt at not being able to tell the judge about Hannah’s problem, and conflicts which exist about accepting not just one’s own past, but the past of one’s country.

Comparing the book and the film.

As I’ve said, the book’s structure means it is  ideal  for a film: it has the ideal three –act structure, and because of its focus on two main characters,  it allows  the director and the actors to show depth in the protagonists.

Though the film follows closely the book (notwithstanding the flashback to begin the story), there are some subtle differences . In the film, Michael’s daughter is taken to Hannah’s grave, and he consults the lecturer(and not his father) about his dilemma. Michael’s initial illness is glandular fever in the film, but not in the book.

Being able to see the ruthlessness of the relationship between Hannah and Michael makes up for the lack of interior perspective (film adaptations of first-person novels often struggle with this dilemma). Hare has chosen to ignore the need for a voiceover to overcome this difficulty, seeing the book’s content as sufficient material for the screenplay.

Hannah appears much more arbitrary in her behaviour in the film, and  she never uses Berg’s name (calling him “kid”) . Fiennes’ careworn appearance as an adult Michael Berg is perfectly judged.

 Book and film suffer from the same problem: an inability to deal  with the  responsibility for such crimes; the premise is too flimsy . Even as a piece of fiction,  both versions of the story can appear clunky.

 Are we supposed to believe she is that emotionally immature because she can’t read?  Is this why she can’t call him Michael?

Somehow neither presentation works as well as it could.