Dave Karger gives The Reader a second look and is wrecked by it:
This past weekend, I decided to give The Reader a second chance. It’s fascinating to learn which films grow on you with repeat viewings and which don’t. This year, I enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire and Milk more when I watched them again, while my love for Frost/Nixon faded a bit the second time. (And I simply don’t have enough time to sit through Benjamin Button again.) With The Reader, though, the difference was the most dramatic. This time, I found myself quite moved by it, particularly during Kate Winslet’s centerpiece courtroom scene in which the film’s surprising plot twist is revealed. By the end, I was a wreck.
On the flipside, Slate Magazine rips the film to shreds, begging voters not to give the Oscar to the film:
What, exactly, was the Kate Winslet character’s “personal triumph”? While in prison for participation in an act of mass murder that was particularly gruesome and personal, given the generally impersonal extermination process—as a death camp guard, she helped ensure 300 Jewish women locked in a burning church would die in the fire—she taught herself to read! What a heartwarming fable about the wonders of literacy and its ability to improve the life of an Auschwitz mass murderer!
Karger, by the way, doesn’t believe The Reader or any other film can best Slumdog on February 22. The Slate column, I believe, is unfair to the character of Hanna Schmitz. We can marvel at how no one did anything back then to prevent the the slaughter of six million. But what did anyone really expect from Hanna Schmitz? That she would stand up to the Nazis? That would have been suicide and clearly it was something that just was not done by the vast majority of Germans at the time. The film makes the point of how easy it is to lay blame on one person as a scapegoat when, in effect, EVERYONE was guilty of letting it happen.
77 Responses for "Revisiting The Reader"
I completely agree with Sasha’s summary judgement here, and condemn the Slate position, while embracing David Karger’s epiphany with this deeply-moving film, that for me is the best of teh five films up for Best Picture.
Of course I also love SLUMDOG, and well-realize it is a lock at this point, unless every copy of the film can be found and destroyed. Ah yes, then there’s the matter of those illegal screeners out there?!? Ah, well………
very much agreed with your opinion on The Reader….
it kinda sucks that such a good film is being that mistreated by people simply because it went a lot farther then they expected it to.
Slumdog already has the Oscar. But I think that The Reader is in the 2nd place. Most of all because of Kate Winslet and the love that the Academy have with the director.
On the other hand, must of the hate for the movie comes from the lovers of the Dark Knight. And that hate is simply unfair. Get over it…
YAY!
THE READER FOR BEST PICTURE WIN!!! ALLLLLLL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!
The Reader is my favorite movie from the 5 nominated. I saw it after the nominations came out, and after listening to all the bitterness on the internet, my expectations were low. I came out of that movie shocked that people were ripping on the movie as much as they were.
I don’t understand why people (like the one from Slate) keep reducing The Reader to a “holocaust movie about the importance of literacy” or whatever. I feel like it is the most complex and emotional film of the top 5 (maybe even the top of 2008). I simply don’t get the hate.
I believe that the academy will go for the feel good film this after a few years of downers – it’s been a while since they have gone with that choice…
I think The Reader will win its token award for Kate Winslet’s pitch perfect performance.
I’d rather see her win for Rev. Road than The Reader which I thought was a little too overbaked, but I’m just as happy to see her win – period.
If The Reader wins best pic – we all must fear Harvey Weinstein and his powers.
I think there’s more of a chance for The Reader to upset in the Best Director category than Picture. Stephen Daldry has been nominated for all 3 of the 3 movies he’s directed. That’s really unusual. Who else has been nominated for Best Director for all of his first three movies? The Academy has some major love for him and has been splitting the Picture/Director vote more in the past ten years than it used to.
Chris, I think that this will be a different year… And if you remember the Oscar also take note of the spirit in America, and because of Obama, the feel-good movie mixed with hope will win, such the Director.
At this point, no one can stop Slumdog.
I’m tired of The Reader. The only reason it’s been nominated is because of Harvey. Otherwise, that spot belongs to The Dark Knight or The Wrestler. The more I think of The Reader the more I’m disliking it. Kate Winslet is unconvincing in the role and I hope Streep wins.
Don’t hate the Reader , but it is NOT one of the top 5 films of the year , and neither is Ben button.
That is why so many people are harsh on these 2 films , because they have been projected as potential Oscar Winners , and they definitely do not deserve it.
WALL – E , The Wrestler are both better films.
And there are VERY FEW people out there who would watch Ben button , The Reader or Frost / nixon twice.
The general public does not care about these movies , and the critics have not been favourable to The Reader or Ben Button .
When one of the most generous critics like Roger Ebert does not like your film at all , there must be something wrong with it.
I Could watch The Reader again , but not Ben button ,i just cannot understand the point of this movie.
There are 3 -4 people who may disagree and say Button was a good film , i respect their opinion , but they are in a small minority.
Anyhow , this discussion seems irrelevant .
In 12 days , All but 2 of the best film nominees will be forgotten in the sands of time .
Milk & Slumdog Millionaire will be remembered as the films of 2008.
Along with The wrestler , The Dark Knight and WALL – E.
Bernardo, I’m not saying I think The Reader will win Director, I just think it’s more likely to upset there than in Picture.
I thought this was a repost of Ryan’s “Rethinking The Reader” post from January 9 until I looked more closely.
And I’m still with Slate, David Denby, A.O. Scott, Anthony Lane, Manohla Dargis and many commenters here: The Reader (Metacritic 58, more than ten points lower than both Crash and ::ahem:: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) is tasteful at best, “slow-acting poison” (Slate) at worst.
Chris, I understand but the shock would be the same, because Danny Boyle is ahead in this categorie. And the 2nd place belongs to David Fincher and not Daldry, besides the love he gets from the Academy.
I’m with Bobby C and Paul Outlaw 100%.
I saw “The Reader” a second time, kid. This is the least deserving nomination of her 6, kid. Meryl or Melissa for the win, kid.
The Academy is not going to reward a Best Picture involving an explicit love affair between an older woman and a child. If Lolita and Harold And Maude didn’t win, neither can the Reader!
The campaign against Kate Winslet is officially started.
Not a campaign against Kate. Just calling it as I see it. She will be nominated many more times. “The Reader” doesn’t deserve any Oscars.
I realize it may pale in comparison with the holocaust, but Hanna is also basically a child abuser because of her affair with this young man. That seems an important part of the film to me, and the Ralph character’s isolation and melancholy seem to reflect the life-long effects of this.
The Slate article is maybe the finest review of The Reader yet. The hatred of this rotten piece of crap is nice to read. I also find Sasha’s argument stupefying.
Nice to see Slate is not influenced by Harvey Weinstein’s nonsense.
“If Lolita and Harold And Maude didn’t win, neither can the Reader!”
Tell that to Lester Burnham, the Emperor Puyi, and Gigi.
Oh my God, but Harvey Weinstein is kind of a Annibal Lecter or what? The nominations are always unfair and the studios make the smarts campaign they can. Is show business, baby…
It seems that people either love or hate The Reader. I get that. What I don’t get is people thinking that Kate doesn’t deserve an Oscar for that portrayal. She truly deserves it this year. I hope people aren’t confusing her spot on acting with the unlikable character she plays.
but Hanna is also basically a child abuser because of her affair with this young man.
No way. A fifteen year boy, a fifteen year old – that ain’t child abuse. Give me a break. I know that argument is out there but seriously? That kind of stuff lessens the impact on real cases of child abuse. It might be morally wrong but it is not “child abuse.” A fifteen year old is not really a child. They are old enough to know better and to make choices.
It seems that people either love or hate The Reader. I get that. What I don’t get is people thinking that Kate doesn’t deserve an Oscar for that portrayal. She truly deserves it this year. I hope people aren’t confusing her spot on acting with the unlikable character she plays.
Speaking for myself, I would like to see Melissa Leo win and, barring that, Meryl Streep, whose performance (like Winslet’s) isn’t a career high. I don’t think Winslet should win just because she is “due,” because that argument always leads to the word “overdue” (Streep).
Sasha, if my fifteen-year-old niece were seduced by a man in his thirties, I would call it child abuse. So would the State of California.
Guess what folks.
Aside from Stanley Kauffmann, perhaps the most important scholar film critic still alive is the British-American David Thomson, whose Dictionary of Films is one of the most important film volumes in print. Thomson is extremely difficult to please, but he’s a fantastic writer and his opinions are informed by a rich and diverse cultural backround.
Thomson says: “THE READER is easily the best film of 2008.”
Stop blaming Harvey Weinstein! What is so bad about him promoting one of the very best movies of 2008? Is that some kind of a crime?
For some reason, I’m unable to edit the above comment. I would replace “child abuse” with “statutory rape,” since there needs to be a “custodial relationship” for it to be child abuse, like a parent or a teacher.
The campaign for The Reader to win Best Picture has begun!
Andre syas: it kinda sucks that such a good film is being that mistreated by people simply because it went a lot farther then they expected it to.
I agree. ‘The Reader’ is not my fave film of the year. But I think it is VERY good. I think a lot of it’s negative reviews are baffling (though it does have almost 100 positives on RT).
And because it was short on precursors, everyone blames it for kicking out ‘The Dark Knight’ (for which we don’t even know if it was in 6th place). I loved ‘The Dark Knight’, but it does have 8 noms. Crazy.
The movie I believe to be the weakest of the 5 is Frost/Noxon, by far.
I don’t think Winslet should win because she is “due”. I think she should win because her performance in The Reader is remarkable. I have seen the other performances (except I never saw Changeling, but I get the gist) and I have to say that Winslet was the best.
I was relieved when she was nominated for The Reader instead of Rev. Road (a role which I’ve seen from her before) and wasn’t relegated to a best supporting actress trophy.
Sasha, that point of view is arguably. A fifteen years old boy is a child by the law, and that´s what matters.
On the other hand, the leading actress winners in the last years are all likable characters, since Julia Roberts in “Erin..”, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman, Hillary Swank, Marion Cottilard…
So, Kate would be an unsual winner.
Milk and The Reader are my two personal picks for the year and Slumdog was good as well. I’d recommend anyone who still thinks The Reader is about the holocaust or sympathy read Roger Ebert’s review and blog on the film. The film is about embarrasment, keeping secrets, and the shame that paralyzes us, allowing us to do things that are much worse. I don’t mind when people dislike the film, but when they complain it’s about empathy or the holocaust prove they don’t know what they’re talking about…
Kate wins because her she has an overdue status and Meryl already has two Oscars. If it were some other A-list Oscarless Actress instead of Meryl this could have been a very different race.
I thought Kate was good in Reader but I do have problems with Ralph’s performance.
#21: “Oh my God, but Harvey Weinstein is kind of a Annibal Lecter or what?”
I assume you meant ANNABELLE Lector?
Did anyone see the piece at MSN.com about actors who should retire now — incredibly, they listed Winslet as one of them, saying:
“Winslet has arrived at a point of total blinding blandness. With her turns in “The Reader” and “Revolutionary Road,” following on from her work in “Little Children,” “All the King’s Men,” “The Life of David Gale,” “Finding Neverland” and other creakers, she has proved that she is professional and talented beyond measure. But she has also bleached out all the fire and weirdness that made her such an original presence to begin with. (Notice I don’t even mention “Titanic,” which is where the trouble obviously started.) If she retires now, we may never have to see her get all-the-way skinny and play Mary Poppins. One can hope.”
http://movies.msn.com/movies/galleryfeature/retirement-age/?gt1=28130
I was not wowed by the film when I saw it — it seemed to me that there was a really excellent film just waiting underneath the surface of the one that was actually made, which was only decent. The friend I went with, who’s pretty familiar with German culture and cinema, bemoaned the fact that it hadn’t been made by Germans, and I agree with her that their approach would probably have been more effective (less sentimentalized, a drabber aesthetic…).
But all of those feelings were compounded by the fact that in the aftermath of seeing the film I bought and read the book, which I didn’t think was amazing, but definitely enjoyed. The real problem, I think, is that the true strengths of the book are very purely literary: Michael discusses memory, and psychological states of mind, and how Germany is supposed to deal with the Holocaust; and it was those passages, for me, that stood out as being remarkable and moving, and not the concrete scenes. We don’t really know that much about Michael but for the purpose of the narrative we ARE him. So when you try to make a movie out of a novel like that, you’re focusing on its weakest elements: the urgency of the novel is watered down, and Michael’s actions seem sort of inexplicable.
I do think that part of it was that the movie just wasn’t that great, but the root of the problem was definitely that it wasn’t a book that was suited to filmic adaptation. (That said I did think Winslet was very good, although it’s not a performance I could get passionate about.)
Did Germany have statutory rape laws in place during that time? I’d have to do my research. If they didn’t, then there is nothing legally wrong with the relationship in the Reader. Morality is a matter of opinion.
“A fifteen years old boy is a child by the law, and that´s what matters.”
A 15 year old is a child by American law. It’s important to make the distinction. And I don’t think this has always been the case. In fact, federal regulation of child safety pretty much started the entire process of defining the legal age of a “child”. For a while, it was a state issue. Some states didn’t even have a legal definition of a child in their statutes. Or, the age was low compared to today (in one state I think the legal age of a child was 13).
In some periods, a 15 year old girl was either a wife or an old maid….
Good job, Sasha and Sam. And I’m with the Karger piece: “The Reader” certainly grew on me after I saw it, particularly Kate’s outstanding, layered performance. While I enjoyed Slumdog, I wouldn’t be outraged if “The Reader” took the prize (not gonna happen). Still, I’m rooting for “Milk” all the way (not gonna happen either).
I don’t necessarily agree with Sasha’s point that 15 year olds are better able to make decisions than say 12 year olds. I mean I think it’s correlative, but certainly not causative. I think you have to look to the circumstances of the situation before you make a judgment about abuse. Age is certainly a factor. But it’s not the end all be all.
Sasha you’re basically committing the same fallacy in reasoning as someone who says having sex with a 16 year old is definitely child abuse in that you assume a particular characteristic based on a generic (and arbitrary) characteristic like age. But I do agree there is no connection between legality and morality. I mean the US has banned the use of drugs like marijuana but it’s a stretch to say it’s morally wrong to smoke marijuana.
“I assume you meant ANNABELLE Lector?”
oh.
I was thinking Clarabell Lechter, Buffalo Bob Gumb, and Dexter Doody.
I think it’s fairly arrogant to assume one country believes one thing simply because another practices it. It just doesn’t follow. American customs are not practiced globally.
“A fifteen year old is not really a child. They are old enough to know better and to make choices.”
We’re talking about a brainy 15-year-old young man born in Germany in 1943. Not the typical 15-year-old you might see on TRL. If TRL still existed.
Anyway, when Igby Slocumb hooked up with his godfather’s mistress, he was the luckiest kid in New York City. Nobody was crying predator over that.
Seriously, The Reader criticism needs to stop. Why? It really has no shot of beating Slumdog for the top prizes, and let’s let Kate Winslet have her well-deserved prize already.
The age of consent throughout most of Europe, even today, is 15 or 16. Germany sets these standards:
Does anybody seriously think Michael Berg lacked “sexual self-determination”?
As Hannah, ahem, observed: “So. That’s why you came back.”
Like I said weeks ago, anybody who thinks The Reader involves pedophilia most likely never got laid in high school.
Also, Ryan, an adult committing sexual acts on a minor aged 15 cannot be prosecuted unless the younger individual files a complaint (or the prosecuting authority considers that it is required to enter the case because of special public interest). However, I don’t know when this proviso was established in Germany.
However, the case of The Reader still sounds like a double standard to me, since I don’t think anyone here would be saying it was okay if it was a 15-year-old girl and a man in his thirties…or a fifteen-year-old boy and a man in his thirties.
Ryan: I just re-posted the above in the new thread, FYI.
Good points, Paul.
Nobody is saying it’s not a little bit creepy. Just not uncommon for that part of the world at that moment in time (and this moment in time too.)
The creepiness is part of the point. It would’ve been simple enough to have Michael celebrate his 18th birthday on page one. Nabokov and Schlink had something else they wanted to say.
[This tedious complaint had bugged me for so long I turned it into a post on the main page. Apologies for the repetition, but maybe it'll help pound home the point.]
Nabokov, certainly.
Schlink knew better than to make Hanna Schmitz und Michael Berg Hannes Schmitz and Michaela Berg. That was a button he was not willing to push.
The Reader was a decent flick, nothing more. It didn’t deserve to be nominated, except for Kate Winslet’s performance.
We are talking about Europe folks, almost half the ‘kids’ then must have lost their virginity that way. And at 15, you are surely in your senses and know what you are doing. Yes it was creepy but the boy had such a sexual appetitive, hardly something I would call rape. And in war-time Europe there obviously was just lots of sleeping around, as there always is when a huge movement of people takes place across a continent. There are stories of numerous teenage soldiers who stayed with middle-aged women and slept with them. As also their stories of how certain older soldiers(in their 30’s) found solace with local teenage girls.
red_wine, that is a cliché about Europe that is just that. When I lived in Germany, the kids were not nearly as sexually precocious as their peers in the US. And The Reader doesn’t take place during wartime Europe, it’s the Fabulous Fifties (1958 according to the book).
I can see a split for Picture and Director: Boyle and The Reader. I think it’s possible. Cinematography and Adapted Screenplay are the two to watch for that to happen though.
~Steven
It seems that Kate Winslet did a good job creating an unlikeable character. That’s what it is about. It may be or not be the best performance of her career but to me it is the best amongst the nominees this year. And I think Danny Boyle deserves the Oscar for Direction.
Karger should see FROZEN RIVER again. How anyone can see it and not vote for Melissa Leo is beyond me. It is brutally obvious her work is the best female performance of the year.
That is acting of the highest order — filmmaking of the highest order.
Go Melissa! Go Courtney Hunt!!!
Yes I fucked up the time period but Europe is still pretty cool with such things much more than America. I didn’t find anything wrong with the love affair in The Reader. The kid was pretty smart and to say that he was willing is an understatement. You cant blanket an age of maturity over all people, different people mature at different rates and ages.
To the negative criticism by those who think of the film as some glorified story of “the powers of literacy” or “another Holocaust film” I say this:
It’s about someone naive, not someone uninformed. She knew what she was doing, but didn’t know how to get out of it.
And some can’t imagine why she would take the blame in court, instead of admitting the truth. My perspective is that, yes, she wanted to conceal her secret, but mainly she realized just how horrible her acts were, and while she could never take it back, she could take the blame. She could never be proud of herself ever again (she knew she pretty much had no shot at any real future) but at least she could let the public have their “villain” and take some solace in the fact that she was serving time for her horrible choices.
that Slate reviewer clearly did not learn anything from the Reader, any of its messages or themes. that’s obnoxious.
My sources have confirmed
Langella – Best actor
Winslet and Streep – Tie for best actress
Ledger – Best supporting actor
Viola Davis – Best supporting actress
The Reader – Best picture
YAY! PE-NO-TALENT CRUZ goes home empty-handed and The Reader reigns.
You know which film gets better on repeat viewing even on the fourth or fifth time…you know what it is…say it with me…THE DARK KNIGHT!!!
Can we have a thread in praise of Milk and Sean Penn, please?
Since it looks like the film is only getting a screenplay award and it deserves much more.
Ditto. ^^^
There’s a nice Sean Penn item I’ll post soon.
We’ll have more Milk over the next few days.
> “You know which film gets better on repeat viewing even on the fourth or fifth time…”
Jaws!
Okay, so we could start a whole list of films that continue to improve on repeat viewings — Magnolia, Close Encounters, 8 1/2, Day for Night…
“Can we have a thread in praise of Milk and Sean Penn, please?
Since it looks like the film is only getting a screenplay award and it deserves much more.”
Not necessary – it could still win actor. I feel the Rourke momentum strong, though. Even from Penn, weirdly enough.
“I feel the Rourke momentum strong”
I, too, sense a great disturbance.
But the force is strong with this one, Obi-Sash ka Stoni.
ryan
that’s a typical picture of Penn; always pissed, always frowning (which makes his performance in Milk more and more impressive).
true, Afrika.
A visitor from another planet might think Penn is “The World’s Scariest Techno Prophet.”
And that visitor? Mickey Rourke.
(kidding!)
OK, I watched GIGI again last night (dvr’d it from TCM earlier this week) … there are so many reasons it doesn’t deserve best picture …. don’t get me wrong, it’s a gorgeous looking movie; the cast –escecially Chevalier, Gingold and the delightful Isabel Jeans — delightful; with an amusing screenplay and one of Minnelli’s loveliest musicals (‘tho I prefer American in Paris and Meet Me In St Louis)….. kudos of course go to Cecil Beaton as well…
… but the story centers on Gingold and Jeans (the latter a retired, um, courtesan who has apparently boffed every crowned head of Europe) who commit to training the adolescent schoolgirl Gigi on how to please a man and become kept woman extraordinaire… it’s a mildly disgusting male fantasy (the whole film is actually outrageously, perhapy unforgivably misogynistic) but audiences lapped it up. The Academy loved it. The DGA loved it. The entire film is dedicated to how the ravishingly handsome Louis Jourdan becomes a better man because in the reprise of the Oscar winning title song he decides it’s better to marry little Gigi before taking her to bed. “Thank heaven!” mumbles Gingold and we segue into the over-ripe finale which is yet another verse of the mildly troubling “Thank Heaven for little girls”…. This is the best picture of 1958. Fifty years later, people are actually shocked by The Reader? Really?
The Reader remains one of my top five movies for 2008. I still think Fiennes was robbed of his Oscar nomination. I still think David Kross and Lena Olin were excellent. Nothing is going to stop Slumdog at this point. And I love Stephen Daldry, but even someone on the fence about Slumdog (like me) has to admit that this is Danny Boyle’s year.
Gigi = My Fair Floozy
#58 – Scott – I loved your take on why Hanna took the fall for the other Nazi c#nts. (Those women were nasty! I would have kicked they asses right there in German court!!!)
Also, with all this talk, I gotta wonder where my 30 year old Romeo was when I was 15. Would have saved me a lot of trouble. Ralph can come to my place anytime he wants. He’s fine as hell & even you straight boys have to agree. You might just jump on that if you had the chance. And you know I’m tellin’ the truth…(dip)
“It’s about someone naive, not someone uninformed. ”
I think the motivation of the Reader is as Michael exclaimed in the film, “We’re trying to understand!” — to understand a very ignorant person, as the center of Hanna’s crime is her ignorance. This is what makes the film most worthy to me, as it is far easier simply labeling someone like Hanna “a mass murderer” and be done with it than trying to understand the reasons behind her action. If we couldn’t understand one mass murderer, how could we prevent the next?
Although the film did not explain how, but the film makers seem (at least to me) to conclude that illiteracy is the main cause for Hanna’ ignorance, evident in Michael’s confession to Ilana in the end.
The way I see it is that we’re born to have the instinct to be sensitive of only our own survival. Through social activities, we start caring about the life and well-being of people we know. It is through education we learn to appreciate people we have not yet met and value their life and existence. So I think it is a valid argument that illiteracy can result in a person’s ignorance.
The uninformed can become the ignorant, and I think this still very much applies in today’s society (look no further than our beloved state of California).
Ric H, thats exactly what I believe, that you have to be taught morality just like reading or writing. And Hannah somehow missed her chance. It thus remains for us to contemplate her reasons for her behavior, as we cant truly condemn anything as right or wrong.
“You know which film gets better on repeat viewing even on the fourth or fifth time…you know what it is…say it with me…THE DARK KNIGHT!!!”
Not for everyone. Each time I watch it it doesn’t get better.
“But what did anyone really expect from Hanna Schmitz? That she would stand up to the Nazis? ”
Sasha, I am embarrased by you. These are two of the dumbest, most short sighted sentences you ever written. And that’s saying something. You are just a dumb lady and on two separate counts. Because of your opinions AND because you completely missed the point the Slate writer was making.
Dave Karger said,
“I specifically was looking for Ralph Fiennes, playing a man who unknowingly had an affair with a Nazi guard as a teenager, to have a killer “Oscar scene” near the end of the film, which he doesn’t. ”
I wholeheartedly agree. I feel the one person who should have had some of the best lines and scenes was surprisingly underwritten IMO.
I enjoyed The Reader very much but I think it had the potential to be great. Michael Berg is the main character in the book and the scenes b/w Winslet and Kross as young Michael are all very good. Fiennes is one of the great actors of his generation so why exactly was he
wasted in this film? There were many opportunities for some great dramatic moments…..but each time a scene showed potential with Michael……either with his daughter or with Hanna…..the writing was not there or the editing took you out of the moment far too soon. Fiennes nuanced and subtle performance works well in most films…..but this needed an emotional gut wrenching scene as Karger suggests.
This film should have been as much of a showcase for Fiennes as for Winslet…….but perhaps Weinstein’s push to get the film completed
undermined the performance we got to see of Fiennes. Who knows what ended up on the cutting room floor? Instead we have The Kate Winslet show. I love Kate….but it wouldn’t exactly be the first time one of Fiennes female co-stars has taken the spotlight.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.