Why didn't Michael tell someone she couldn't have written the report?
-
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. -
sehlee — 12 years ago(December 01, 2013 03:17 PM)
It has been a while since I've seen this movie but she herself did not admit it. If I remember correctly, to her the going to prison was worth keeping her secret. The boy definitely wanted to speak up but if she was willing to go to prison just to keep her secret, who was he to reveal it? He really loved her and wanted to tell them that she couldn't read but that would have been the easier thing for him to do. And since he did love her, he backed off and let her keep her dignity by keeping her secret because to her, it was worth it. It is him sacrificing what he wanted or thought was right for what she really wanted.
Like I said, has been a while since I've seen the movie so I might be remembering it totally wrong.
It that is the casejust ignore me. -
bootblack987 — 12 years ago(January 18, 2014 04:28 PM)
I agree. Not only was Hanna punished more than she should have been, the five other ladies received lesser sentences than they should have. And the one woman who DID write the report should have served Hannah's sentence, but did much, much less time than was warranted.
-
bootblack987 — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 12:44 PM)
- Everyone who knew the truth, but lied instead of telling the truth (Michael, the other guards, anyone in the Nazi party who knew, anyone who knew or suspected Hanna was illiterate and lastly, Hanna herself)
- Everyone in the justice system whose job it was to find out the truth (all lawyers, all judges, all investigators, etc.)
-
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 04:54 PM)
It appears to be very much her fault that the actual report writer got away with the crime.
1- I would rather say, firstly, Hanna herself. By admitting to writing the report she ended the court's attempt to find the real report writer.
2- I don't think you can really blame the justice system - they can only go on what they are told and she perjured herself and perverted the course of justice.
But returning to point one - The blame definitely lies with Michael. It's his failure, especially as a law student of the democratic generation, and his inability to deal with his own guilt that sticks out. -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 09:58 PM)
I don't think you can really blame the justice system
I don't, because IRL I just can't see that happening for the reasons I've outlined above. There's no question her illiteracy would have been picked up in pre-trial testing. For goodness sake even the movie shows us she was incapable of signing her name to witness statements, much less write unsigned reports to which she was bullied into admitting she did during the trial, while her defence sat mute.
Yes Michael should have spoken up, but at the same time it shouldn't have been left up to a visiting law student to advocate for Hanna, though the film undoubtedly intends us to take this perspective. -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(January 22, 2014 06:50 AM)
I completely agree on both points. They story requires a huge suspension of disbelief (that her illiteracy would go unnoticed and Michael's role). It could be (has been) argued that the court was at fault and that it wasn't Michael's responsibility, though as you say, the film intends us not to take this perspective.
-
adrossan — 12 years ago(January 28, 2014 07:42 PM)
Because he realises that Hannah wishes to receive punishment, and hide her illiteracy. We can't tell from the movie which she is most afraid of, but my guess (by way of how innocently she answered questions to horrific events)is that she was more ashamed of her illiteracy.
She was somewhat simplistic and it appeared that to take the blame for the report was to allow the real writer to go unpunished. On the other hand, as long as a "German" took punishment for the crime, would not justice be done ?
As I lawyer I believe they all should have been sentenced to life without parole as they were all culpable and complicit in the murders.
It was also compulsory for German youth to complete exercises in National Socialism, in both Hitler Youth & Bundes Deutschemadschel (League of German Girls, same as Hitler Youth but for girls) and also demonstrate knowledge of Mein Kampf.
Also, as a member of the SS Konzentration Abteilung (KZ Guards) she would mostly definitely been arrested at the end of the war, and educated in a De-nazification camp by the Allies, before either being tried or released back into the opoulation.
Not satisfied with the lengthy jail term she received, she took the action at the end of the sentence to ensure she paid the ultimate price for her crimes.
Perhaps after listenting to the tapes and reading the books, she finally understood the magnitude of her actions. -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(January 29, 2014 03:09 AM)
As I lawyer I believe they all should have been sentenced to life without parole as they were all culpable and complicit in the murders.
I think to be guilty of murder, intent had to be proved. The people found guilty of murder were the camp commandants and individuals who murdered and tortured of their own accord without a specific order to kill someone. (ie locking the church doors).
Those who carried out the selections were accessories to murder because actual intent to murder (complicity) could not be proved.
Because he realises that Hannah wishes to receive punishment, and hide her illiteracy. We can't tell from the movie which she is most afraid of, but my guess (by way of how innocently she answered questions to horrific events)is that she was more ashamed of her illiteracy.
I'm not sure that Hanna wishes to receive punishment. She doesn't believe that what she did was wrong - hence her candid answers - not an example of innocence but rather of a distinct lack of morality. -
adrossan — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 02:34 AM)
Lyndhen, I won't retain you for my defence
I said culpable and complicitnot planning and instigating. Had they been caught in 1946 rather than 1969, they probably would have received the death penalty rather than a very lenient 4 years
On a legal basis, how can you defend locking 300 people into a barn & setting fire to it ? You cannot put someone in a building and set fire to it, let alone
300
people, without intending to take the life of at least one person - that is premeditated murder in every court I know of.
Doctrine of Res ipsa Loquitor.
Do try & get hold of "The Scourge of the Swastika", an excellent book on Nazi atrocities. There are several cases of persons being locked in buildings and being burned to death, throughout Poland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, France and many other places in Europe, and many many times to Jews also.
Not one of the Nazi perpetrators successfully defended a charge of murder on the basis that intent could not be proved.
Real life cases involving Nazis who claimed they were following orders (befehl) failed at Nuremburg and many other trails afterward.
Hanna to my mind most definitely knew she deserved some punishment, and clearly knew she had done wrong and her memories troubled her. While not burdened with an overly high IQ, I believe she wanted to perform some sort of penance, at the very least to relieve her conscience. She didn't anticipate the others would turn on her & falsely accuse her of writing the report, and her shame at confessing her illiteracy kept her mouth closed when the three words "I can't read" would have saved her from 25 years imprisonment.
But then we wouldn't have had the story, would we ?
Cheers.