Saturday, February 21, 2009

"It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what I feel. The dead are still dead."

Most people already had an opinion about The Reader before a single frame of film had been screened. Whispers about behind the scenes politicking have been filling the blogosphere since early fall. Add to that the fact that many feel this film "stole" The Dark Knight's best picture nom and you have a pretty stacked deck. But in the end what is truly important is one simple question:

Is it best picture material?

My answer quite bluntly is NO. Now this is not to say that the film is completely devoid of admirable qualities. The cinematography is beautiful, the direction is assured and the performances (especially that of Kate Winslet) are astounding. So what is it then that trips such a potent blend of positives? One word - structure.

The latter half of the film is far superior to the first half. The first half is 100% exposition - a screenwriter's nightmare. Sure they have hot naked flesh to keep asses in seats, but other than that it is a rather hollow experience.

You can tell they knew this was a bit of a problem. The film's opening scene sets up a mystery in order to make the audience want to sit through the next hour, they even employ occasional flash forwards, but in the end it all results in making that first hour all the more agonizing. You just want it to be over so that you can find out what is going on at the start.

Once the film gets down to the brass tacks of dealing with the Holocaust and morality it becomes a whole new ball game. There are deep philosophical questions being addressed and I feel the film does an able job of grappling with them. There are no easy answers and that is what makes for great drama.

So why not just cut out that whole first part and make the film focus on the latter half? Because it's necessary. As dull as that first half is, it provides us with essential information towards understanding what occurs in the latter half. So what then could have been done? Should this film not even have been attempted?

No. I think there's a great film laying in there somewhere. It just needed some more time in the editing room to figure out all those structuring problems. Too bad someone rushed it through post. Oops! There I go bickering about studio politics.

Mahalo

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I’ve seen the film on multiple occasions and don’t feel that the first half is boring at all (although it might have been “tightened” in spots) and that it provides a nescecary backstory for the second half of the movie. Besides, the coal dust and the bathtub are the stuff of one young man’s most virulent fantasy.