Absolutely incredible film, I read IMDB.com message boards and here is my reaction. First, yes she can't read or write, michael finally figures this out. She is rural, illiterate girl, quits jobs when she is put in position of having to admit her illiteracy. This is not unusual, a fellow at the senior center can't read, he flunked out of school grade 5, he has asked me to help him learn to read. (problem is he is kinda senile, or maybe simple minded, I can't figure if he wants attention or really wants to read, I am caring for a sick cat, I mean there are limits on my humanity ya know?). Anyway, the movie is about Justice, capital J. Not the law (michael is lawyer, his professor is stressing law, not morality or justice, his students dont get it, neither does michael. The reason Hannah doesnt say at her trial, I cant read or write, I am illiterate, I was in bad situation with the world collapsing around me and didnt know what to do, is NOT that she was embarrassed, but that SHE RECOGNIZED HER GUILT even though her comrades didnt, lied, covered for each other, and then blamed her and dumped on her. She paid for her guilt, and in a way the guilt of others denied by them (almost like christ like figure). She leaves what little money she has for the sole survivor of the church fire - its all she can do, in a meager way, her own imprisonment wasnt enough, she finally died for her sins. So who is really fucked here? the morally superior law students who dont understand the complexity of justice; the court that wanted to establish guilt under law, and fit square pegs in round holes to do so; Michael, the prick, he had great sex with this woman but abandons her once she is on trial, how shallow is he? (very). the lone survivor of the fire - does she get it? Well, from her perspective, can there ever be justice even if everyone involved gets life in prison? how can you make something like this "right?" Socrates played with us in the Republic about Justice - it is illusionary, hard to define. The film deals with a joseph Conrad "heart of Darknesss" dilemma, an illiterate rural girl joins the SS as a low ranking guard because she needed a job that would hide her illiteracy, and "Mr. Kurtz, he dead" there was no one to guide her or help her make decisions, esp the c**nts who were her guard comrades. She takes on the guilt, as best she can - how can she atone? Does anyone get this like me, or am I being the political philosopher here and looking back at the cave I just walked out of???? your comments are welcome (just be civil :)
1 comment:
My husband and I just watched the film this evening. It was a great film, the performances were amazing. Hanna decoding the cassette tape system, then finally going to retrieve the book from the prison library - few words passing her lips, but Kate Winslet conveyed it all with the restrained passion and fear in her eyes.
Who is guilty? Well, who isn't? Hanna was a person of some integrity as a grown adult, recognizing her culpability. When Michael walks away after the trial, it's the telling moment in his life's path, and one which returns to haunt him when he finally reaches true adulthood and tries to re-establish a relationship with his daughter. His secret recordings are cowardly, yet kind too - a sort of relenting to a nature that is sensitive and compassionate but also self-absorbed and obsessed with status.
Great film
Post a Comment