The document provides a detailed summary and analysis of the film The Reader. It discusses how the film depicts the relationship between Michael and Hannah, a former SS officer, and Michael's journey of trying to understand Hannah's actions. It analyzes how the film positions the audience with both Michael and Hannah at times to experience their emotions. It also examines how certain scenes realistically portray the social attitudes of the time period and provoke complex reactions from the audience around understanding Nazi ideology and actions.

1. The Reader- (Daldry, 2008). Brett Egan
Straight away from the beginning of the film, we are shown glimpses of Nazi swastikas
through cut-a way’s and POV shots of Michael’s sticker book. This could evoke response
from a large number of viewers, including ex-Nazi soldiers and Jewish survivors. The scene
in which one of Michael’s classmates goes on a rant about the Nazi movement and in
particular when he says- “If I had a gun I would shoot her” (talking about Hannah Schmitz) is
significant as it shows an average German civilians perspective on the Nazi’s and portrays to
the audience that the German population also struggled to come to terms with the horrific
reality of what took place behind the lies of the Hitler reign, as well as the rest of the world
coming to terms with it.
By doing this, the director is drawing in the Western European audience (particularly
Germany and Poland as they were the countries most heavily involved with the Nazi
movement and many concentration camps were stationed in these countries), by voicing
their perspective to the worldwide audience and suggesting that all the post-war
discrimination towards Western Europeans was unjustified and wrong as they also felt
horrified and disgusted that this happened too.
The realistic nature of the narratives also hook the audience in as the relationship starts off
as friendly between Hannah Schmitz and Michael Burg which then goes on to become a
sexual affair. Their relationship may have been seen as scandalous for that time period; not
only because of the significant age gap but also because it is glorifying sex before marriage;
something which was frowned upon in the 1950’s (which is when the sexual relationship
took place between Michael and Hannah).
The beginning of the film shows Michael in a very plain house, making tea for a mysterious
woman. The all-white furniture may be a connotation of his seemingly empty, cold emotions
that seem to form a barrier between him and the woman- this bridges into the sequence
where a younger Michael is on a tram and the weather is all stormy and he’s being sick. This
represents the darker times to come for Michael and this sequence is a flashback in the
narrative to show Michael’s story from the beginning; which is reflected by the pathetic
fallacy of the mise en scene.
When Hannah and Michael’s physical affair begins, I was personally shocked when they
started to have sex, as the relationship started friendly with Hannah just merely being the
good Samaritan to an ill stranger but the camera work was constructed very effectively
around the key scene from where Michael is getting unchanged to Hannah getting him out
of the bath.
For example we have a voyeuristic shot from Hannah’s point of view as her eyes linger over
his naked body from behind the shower curtain and we capture her seductive expressions
through a mid- low shot which is effective as we are placed lower than her and she is given a
lot of power; it’s ironic that the audience are aware Hannah has the power over Michael

2. because of her age and experience but we are unaware so far of her history of being an SS
officer and the subtle subliminal flashes of the swastika symbols throughout the film leaves
us all the clues.
However, when their affair goes on for a while, I began to wonder where the complication
in the narrative was going to come from. Although no apparent complication is brought up,
we are aware there will be trouble first of all when Michael sees Hannah on the tram and
she is frosty with him and then an argument erupts when he’s waiting at her flat. At times
she’s also short-tempered and very controlling; something which we understand later on
was just her Nazi alter-ego surfacing as she would have obviously been so used to being in
power.
I think the film isn’t about trying to make the audience understand or reason with Hannah’s
actions; I think the film is about letting the audience see Michael’s long and complex journey
of trying to understand and reason with Hannah’s actions. Obviously he was in love with her
at the beginning of the film and he tries to defend her actions in front of his law class, to the
fury of one of his classmates.
The argument that erupts between Michael and his classmate over Hannah, I believe, is
very much metaphorical of the feuding between people with different ideologies of the Nazi
soldiers and the SS. For example some saw the actions of many Nazi’s as ‘involuntary’ and
that they were just under orders, whereas many contrasted this point of view as they saw
Nazi’s to be evil and that they chose to kill people rather than being under orders.
We are positioned with Michael most of the time as we see his transformation into a man.
We go through the cycle of emotions with him when Hannah mysteriously leaves all of a
sudden, hence causing narrative shock as it’s so unexpected. We see him become quite
reclusive as he sits by himself working whilst his friends are partying. This shows how
Hannah has affected him and up until the point where he sees her in court, he’s merely just
plodding through life without any major moments happening in his life.
During the case there is lots of voyeuristic qualities as we are positioned from his
perspective as he peers between people to get a look at Hannah. However as times, the
director uniquely switches our position as an audience without us really realising. We are
placed in Hannah’s perspective as she scans the panel of her former SS members and when
they all blame her for the report, we see her look at the notepad and then at the judge. We
also get her point of view when she looks up at a tearful Michael as she’s sentenced to life
imprisonment.
We are positioned with her as she attempts to defend her case by explaining it was the rules
that she had to get rid of the elders as more and more Jews were brought to the camps
every day and that there would have been no room for them all.
This cause’s ideological shock to the audience as it seems rather insensitive when she says
that but she seems oblivious as to why that’s so wrong. Personally, I felt like this confirms

3. just how much the Nazi’s could be brainwashed into thinking that killing is acceptable and
almost led me to empathise with Hannah, which was enhanced even further as there is
close-up’s to capture her emotion and trembling.