Why didn't Michael tell someone she couldn't have written the report?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
icefairy88 — 12 years ago(July 08, 2013 03:36 PM)
I know he was struggling with it throughout that part in the movie, but i couldn't help but think, the whole time she was in jail, how different her life would have been if he would have just told someone she couldn't have written it. I guess they might not have believed him but he could have drastically changed her life for the better, with her only having to serve 4+ years in jail. It was just really sad to think that the rest of the movie, things might have been better for her. Why didn't he say something? Even just to his professor?
-
llieno-94 — 12 years ago(July 08, 2013 07:10 PM)
The movie changes things a little from the book in this part in the novel it is learned that Michael's father is a Philosophy professor and a very wise man. He goes to his father and they discuss the situation (similar to how Michael did with he professor in the film version). His father explains to him that if the said person knows that the information could help them but chose to conceal it and go to jail they must have some very good reasonings for hiding it. He prompts Michael to talk to the said person (whom we know as Hanna), but Michael claims it out of the question and from there he just lets Hanna decide her own fate.
They include the scene in the movie of Michael almost visiting Hanna in jail to talk about it with her, but he backs out.
I'm more than just a blonde with an a** that won't quit! -
IrishEyes1989 — 12 years ago(July 22, 2013 02:51 AM)
I think he kept it to himself because he knew that to reveal that secret to the world, even if it could benefit her, would take away Hanna's last scrap of dignity. She knew she was going to spend the rest of her life in jail but she also knew that she still had her secret and that no one could take that away from her. Michael proved his loyalty and love for her by keeping quiet about it. And I think any guilt he might have felt about not making it public was quelled by the experience of making and sending the tapes to her.
"I'm just a f_cked up girl looking for my own peace of mind; Don't assign me yours." -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 01:15 AM)
on the other hand, if he really loved her and was loyal to her why would he let her go to prison for life instead of just four years? Other people have pointed out that far from being an action of love and loyalty, it was actually cruel.
-
IrishEyes1989 — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 07:10 AM)
You do make a good point. I've often thought about it from that perspective as well and I think I, like some other viewers, have tried to justify him not doing more to help her by convincing myself that he did it to protect her dignity (by keeping her secret). It's certainly a very difficult situation. There's a definite urge to judge Michael harshly but, speaking for myself, I'm a hopeless romantic so that's why I viewed it as an act of love, albeit an unconventional one.
How about you Lyndhen? What is your personal opinion on Michael's actions?
"I'm just a f_cked up girl looking for my own peace of mind; Don't assign me yours." -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(July 24, 2013 01:13 AM)
I don't agree with him being cruel as I mentioned others have said. I think that he was so horrified and disgusted, with possibly a feeling of his own violation, that he could not do anything to help her.
I think he was supposed to be terribly in love with her in the sense of a teenagers first love - very powerful, very romantic and seen through very rose tinted glasses and possibly a love that deepens with the passing of time - the first love is always the greatest etc. I didn't find that intensity of love particularly believable myself (I didn't find her attractive but I'm not a German teenager). However, I think that was the intention.
So once we accept that extreme depth of his love then we have to consider the horror he must have felt when it turned out that she was a camp guard - and that she did similar things to him that she did to her victims (ie have them all read to her). I think we tend to discount the horror he felt because most of us are not German and do not feel the weight of guilt and shame that Germans (especially of his generation) may have felt. Thus, we think it's much easier for him to forgive and understand her than it is supposed to be.
There is possibly a better analogy for us to understand his horrific predicament. (and this is disturbing). Paedophiles are a probable equivalent to camp guards for us. So imagine that you are terribly in love with someone who then turned out to be a child molester and in addition, did similar things to his victims that he did to you - I think that that disturbing little analogy probably gets closer to the horror that Michael felt and explains why he couldn't help Hanna and probably explains the disgust with himself and his inability in the end to forgive her.
The analogy is not perfect (or pleasant) but I'm just trying to demonstrate the depth of horror and disgust that he must have felt. -
dakowill11 — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 10:30 PM)
Tbh I was a little confused too during the courtroom scene when it was revealed Hanna got young and feeble camp inmates to read to her. And although I was disturbed by the thought she was molesting young girls upon reflection I don't believe she was guilty of such at all (the novel, however, might delve deeper in this regard, but I haven't read it so cannot comment). So I think her sole crime was of having sex with a teenager and that's all.
-
ptbarnum — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 06:52 AM)
He had a history of not being open. He was incapable. But in later years he admitted it to the daughter of his failed marriage. At the very end of the movie he opens up to his daughter about his lost love.
-
Marion_C — 12 years ago(March 05, 2014 11:08 PM)
To be fair, no one knew the verdict until the end. He was still young and he even cried to hear life sentence. He probably didn't know or understand that there would be such a contrast.
"MALLL NOOO, JESUS CHRIST!"- Leonardo DiCaprio, Inception
-
ciprianl — 11 years ago(May 28, 2014 02:17 PM)
He did understand exactly, since he said so when speaking to his professor, that the piece of information he had could change the outcome of the trial. If believed by the court it would have proven that all the guards were equally guilty of murder. His decision could mean that, for him, she was more guilty than the other guards, so she deserves the harsher punishment.
It was mentioned that anyway the court would not have accepted her illiteracy as an excuse, since anyone can simply pretend not to be able to read or write. But she could have kept refusing to provide it, since I believe she did have the right not to incriminate herself. Ultimately she was sentenced on her admission of responsibility, without which she would have received equal sentence to the other guards. -
Thought_Criminal_J62377 — 10 years ago(January 16, 2016 01:17 AM)
it was actually cruel.
His actions when he does finally visit her in jail, one week before her release, proves he was cruel. He said he wondered what she'd learned(which likely means about her actions as a guard) and he was very cold to her. I think that's why she hung herself, also.
Yea, Tho I Walk Thru The Valley Of The Shadow Of Political Correctness -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 07:33 AM)
We can only speculate especially if you haven't read the book, but I think you're correct in asserting that
I think he kept it to himself because he knew that to reveal that secret to the world, even if it could benefit her, would take away Hanna's last scrap of dignity. She knew she was going to spend the rest of her life in jail but she also knew that she still had her secret and that no one could take that away from her.
He thinks, rightly or wrongly she is ashamed of her illiteracy and doesn't want that revealed in court along with details of their intimate relationship that mirrored some identical features to those involvements she had with the Jewish readers. So despite the urgings of his law professor, his mouth remains tightly shut.
Mind you it shouldn't have been left to Michael to be Hanna's advocate, though the film cleverly contrives that we think that way. I've argued on other threads that I find it inconceivable that pre-trial, neither the courts nor Hanna's defence (who doesn't say a word the whole movie) apparently establish her illiteracy. These prisoners would have undeniably been subjected to a battery of psychological tests to ensure they were fit to stand trial. Her illiteracy would have been exposed then, even if she had wanted to hide it. -
smile_with_me99 — 12 years ago(August 07, 2013 11:42 AM)
Put yourself in his shoes.
I think as much as he loved her, he was also bit shamed/ feeling guilty of having had an affair with someone who was involved in such a big crime.
So I guess the reason why he decided not to tell other people about her illiteracy was a mixture feeling, both love and guilty. -
jscb — 12 years ago(October 27, 2013 04:14 AM)
What annoys me about his not speaking up is not that she could have received a shorter sentence. If he'd shown she couldn't have written the report because of her illiteracy, the other defendants would have been exposed as liars and would undoubtedly have received the longer sentences they deserved.
The whole lot should have been hanged, they were just tried too late.