Most of the time, I agree with Click the City‘s resident film critic Philbert Ortiz Dy’s film reviews. He does go beyond plots and star gazing, and occasionally delves into an analysis of the technical aspects of film making. I agreed when he described Bride Wars as “a genuine must-miss movie” and the two-star (out of five) rating it was given. I was genuinely perturbed, however, when The Reader and Push were given the same rating and there appears to be more criticism than praise for The Reader than for Push.
Mr. Dy describes The Reader as “strikingly empty” and complains that it “goes sweet when it could’ve been haunting, romantic when it could be tragic, uplifting where it ought to be painful. At every turn it makes the easier choice, distancing itself from the horrors of its subject, producing a film that’s okay enough to watch, but hardly satisfying in any meaningful way.”
Meanwhile, he claims that Push “moves at a really brisk pace” and that it “isn’t really all that bad, and it probably deserves more of a chance than it’s going to get.”
Really? Did Mr. Dy miss the whole point of The Reader? It isn’t about the Holocaust per se, as he suggests. Rather, it is about how time has distanced this generation from the horrors of the Holocaust. The pain and horror suffered by the Jews were not central to the story. It is the culpability of Hanna (played by Kate Winslet), one of the guards who allowed prisoners to die inside a burning church. The conflict is not about the righteousness of Hitler’s beliefs but the inner turmoil within this woman who became a Nazi guard because she needed a job — a woman who took her job so seriously that she refused to unlock the door of the burning church to allow the people inside, all Nazi prisoners, to escape the fire. Her job was to make sure the prisoners didn’t escape so how could she open the door when it they could have escaped in the confusion? In her mind, she was merely doing her job.
The Reader is about a simple woman, uneducated and illiterate, who might not have fully comprehended the ramifications of the complex political game that was being played out at the time — a woman so simplistic in the way she thought that she opted to admit principal guilt in the death of the prisoners and spend the rest of her life in prison than face public humiliation by admitting that she could neither read nor right. I thought that was all plain enough especially since it was so well summed up in the end. After Hanna taught herself to read and write while in prison, and had the chance to learn about the Holocaust from a broader and deeper perspective, her feeling of guilt became so overwhelming that she decided to kill herself and leave her worldly possessions to the child, now grown up, who survived the fire.
And The Reader is about a young man who loved this woman all his life — a young man torn by guilt for loving a woman so evil in the eyes of the world that she allowed all those people to die. It is a dilemma between the purity of love and the morality inflicted by society on every individual.
That is a “strikingly empty” film “that’s okay enough to watch, but hardly satisfying in any meaningful way”? Are Filipinos really unappreciative of films where there’s scarcity of slapping, screaming, bitching, fistfights and intrigues? Are those the only ways to convey deep emotions?
I am reminded of a scene in the Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire many years ago when Sam Mussabini (Ian Holm) smashes his fist through his straw hat in triumph when his protege, Harold Abrahams, wins the 100 meter dash in the 1924 Olympics. That simple act conveyed such a powerful emotion but some people just cannot appreciate it because triumph, for them, can only be conveyed through noisy cheering, jumping and general melee.
I don’t know what makes a reviewer a bona fide critic but there are some films that have been lambasted by critics in high profile publications that I found very enjoyable. Eagle Eye, for instance, and Mamma Mia! both of which enjoyed commercial success but not critical acclaim. Mr. Dy is described by Click the City as someone who “spends most of his time watching horrible movies so other people don’t have to” and there is a representation of authority there that implies a huge amount of fairness and objectivity. I mean, how else can anyone claim that people should miss what he tells them to miss and see what se says they should see?
If all film critics were more straighforward, even they won’t dare deny that all movie reviews are subjective and dependent on the perspective and biases of every reviewer. How a person appreciates or misappreciates things — whether a film, a book, a concert or even a scandal in government — is the product of everything that he is. It is the result of how he was raised, how his childhood was spent, his education or the lack of it, his religious views, his values… Everything that we experience in life, we interpret according to the sum of life experiences we have gone through. And I fail to see how a subjective opinion can be labeled as something so authoritative that people should base their decisions on it even if it’s something so mundane as watching a movie.
I saw The Reader ahead of all the Oscar buzz and found it very thought-provoking. I too was perplexed when I later read a review of the film that echoed some of the same ideas your reviewer expressed-that the movie somehow fell short, that it pulled punches, insulating its viewers from the real horrors of the Holocaust. I agree with you completely that the movie was not about the Holocaust itself, but about a woman in the context of it. The film challenges us to understand people like Hanna. On the one hand, it’s unthinkable to believe that she could be so single-minded in her task as to ignore the screams of the Jews she left to burn in that church. But we also can’t say that she was driven by hate or prejudice. She wasn’t a Nazi believer, as far as we can tell. The film forces us to consider that not everyone who had a part in the Holocaust was a monster. Some, like Hanna, are harder to lump into the categories of good and evil. People are complicated, Nazi guards included. In making that point, in nudging viewers towards that rather uncomfortable idea, I think the film succeeded indeed.
As for film critics, I have, on occasion, postured as one. In that capacity, I endeavored to come up with something informed not just by my own preferences, but by facts, trends, and the larger context, filtered through analysis and a dose of critical thought. But in no instance did I think that my opinion was sacrosanct. Film reviews, mine at least, are always simply “for your consideration.”
Exactly. A personal recommendation.
Never heard of a critic being honored because of his criticism. That’s why I never believe what they say until I saw the film and then make my own judgement. As the saying goes “Movie is in the eyes of the beholder”. : )
I post a comment but can’t find it.
It landed in the Spam filter. Buti I checked. And I check like… once a month? Sowee.
Maybe because film critics review movies the way they see them. It could be the result of how they were raised, how their childhoods were spent, their education or the lack of it, their religious views, their values… In the same way that movie critics were praised or criticized by how people see their reviews before or after they actually saw the movie.
Just like how the Chinese people were enraged by The Mummy III because they didn’t see the “historical” aspect that they were hoping to see in the movie.
In the same way that you didn’t like The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor while I enjoyed it so much and the way you like Jet Li while I hate even a single sight of his face.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholdee. LOLs
Agreed. What’s really off is the authority representation: someone who “spends most of his time watching horrible movies so other people don’t have to”. Wow. It should be every review is a personal assessment and should be taken as a mere recommendation rather than gospel truth.
chill it. phil dy doesn’t force anyone to watch anything. as if any critic can? nor does he claim authority. if you’re saying he does, just ‘cos of that little blurb in his author profile, then that’s just laughable. another author’s profile in clickthecity says she’s unbeatable in tetris. would you really think she’s making herself queen of tetris-dom champion of the tetris world just because of that blurb? goodness, if you say yes then i’m wasting my time here.
this statement right here: every review is a personal assessment and should be taken as a mere recommendation rather than gospel truth. –maybe you should apply it to phil dy’s reviews, too. only then will you be able to appreciate that sometimes people’s views vary from yours. they may be right, they may be wrong–but that’s not the point. the point is, they’re just different from yours.
If the profiles of two authors are untrue, then, everything on that site is suspect. Credibility and truthfulness cannot be gained by chilling.
And I really wish you’d try and understand the column in its entirety first before commenting instead of cherry picking just to sound cool.
Gee, you don’t even have the class to separate the issue from the personality. Apparently, you didn’t notice that I never attacked your “Phil” as a person yet here you are, and you’re not even the person affected, making me sound like I can’t tolerate difference in opinion. Read again. Then, again. Until you get it.
He does not claim authority? He should have his blurb rewritten.
I know irony is really hard to get across in text, but yes, the stuff in my author’s profile is meant to be humorous, along with the stuff that talks about how useless my degree has been. I’m sorry if that didn’t come across to you, but it’s nothing to be perturbed about.
They have to market themselves in a gimmicky way kasi. And there are people who will blindly go with an “authority” who has done a good job establishing themselves as such. I’m thinking specifically of the fashion industry.
I don’t read critics reviews. I find them out of touch with reality most of the time. Especially the artsy-fartsy ones who for instsance would lambast comedies because it lacks “meaning” or “substance”, when the meaning is in the laughter it generates.
Re “I find them out of touch with reality most of the time. Especially the artsy-fartsy ones…”
Amen! That includes self-proclaimed literary geniuses, art critics, music critics…
adored ‘the reader’ too. my hubby was just okay with it. so i can relate a bit on the differences in opinion re this movie. i loved ‘the reader’ because kate w., despite her inability to relate to the character (she said this in her interview in time mag), was able to play the role with empathy. her dislike of hannah was not at all perceptible in her acting. some actors can’t do this for certain roles (ex sarah jessica parker in ‘the family stone’). also, i agree that the critic missed the point in that the holocaust is not the main focus of this movie. further emphasizing details about it would derail the movie from its main theme which in essence is the untenable romantic relationship of hannah and the boy.
Hello Phil. Sorry to respond in a new thread — threaded commenting is limited to 5 levels.
The “so you won’t have to” part is something I’ve seen on the sidebar of every member blog of a huge blog network. And that network represents their authors as authorities. Fact is, most of their authors are human aggregators well trained in the art of copy-pasting. So, no, I don’t find the phrase humorous. Not that you’re in the same league as them. How patiently you himay (what’s the English word anyway?) movies is something really great.
And the fact that you’re not taking my column as a personal attack is really great. Can’t say the same for some of your very immature defenders but then again, they are not your liability. More movie reviews!
I detest the way Hollywood panders to the basest instincts of audiences throughout the year, but suddenly want to reward ‘serious’ pictures with an Academy Award. Bah! Such hypocrisy. And what was ‘The Reader’ anyway but thinly veiled porn? And a 30-something man seducing a 15 year old girl would have had feminists and bible thumpers in a froth. Where is the umbrage and outrage when it is the opposite scenario?
Thinly veiled porn? Whoa!
What else would you call it? Just because it was a woman seducing a boy it was ‘art’. If it was a 34 year old man seducing a 15 year old girl I am positive you would not be writing glowing reviews.
How come you’re just focused on the sex part? That was only a part of the story. You should focus more on how the “reading” before sex figures prominently in Hanna’s demeanor with the prisoners when she was a guard. And the boy’s confusion about how he felt about the guilt/non-guilt of Hanna. Because that was what the novel and the film was about, not the sex.
Ummmmm no. The rest was just cover for what was basically a soft core porn movie featuring child molestation. You have no comment on the point, but I guarantee you would if a girl the same age as your daughter was the one being taken advantage of by a 34 year old man. And using illiteracy to excuse the most heinous acts is just…..well, heinous.
When you give a hypothetical example without specifying the circumstances by which the supposed “taking advantage” happens makes it impossible to make an intelligent comment.