Lawbolisted Powerful

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

kaaber-2 This is a most remarkable film about an article written by a most remarkable philosopher. If von Trotta's film is at all reminiscent of any other film, I'll put my money on Miller's "Capote" (with Philip Seymor Hoffman), about another 60s writer who approached an untouchable subject in a controversial way. But there the analogy stops. Where the earlier film exhibited Capote as preying on his death-row murderers for his own personal gain, von Trotta's and Sukowa's Arendt jeopardizes her academic esteem with her account of the Jerusalem trial of the indefensible Nazi criminal Adolf Eichman. The world in general and Ben Gurion's Israel in particular wish merely to gloat at the downfall of a monster, but Arendt refuses to oblige. In Eichman, she sees a depressingly ordinary man caught up in the atrocities of the Third Reich; a man who was not part of Hitler's anti-Semitic craze but was simply doing his duty by the corrupt laws of a monstrous regime. Stating that "If (Eichman) had not been found guilty before he appeared in Jerusalem, the Israelis would never have dared, or wanted, to kidnap him in formal violation of Argentine law," Arendt exposes the hypocrisy of the Jerusalem show trial and of a world that used Eichman as a scapegoat whose execution would exempt the rest of the world from blame. Arendt ends the article she was commissioned to write for "the New Yorker" with her own rephrasing of the Jerusalem verdict of Eichman: "Just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations… we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang." All hell breaks loose after the publication, but when asked if she would have written the article if she had known what would ensue, Arendt says yes. Her integrity instructed her. However, the film delves deeper than this, and in different directions, too, which leaves the final verdict up to us. On one hand, we clearly see Arendt's point justified when Israeli government officials inform her that her work will be banned in Israel and she retorts, "You forbid books and you speak of decency?" But, on the other hand, the film gingerly touches upon Arendt's past affair with Nazi sympathizer Heidegger and makes us wonder whether this may somehow have influenced her article, and moreover, we are repeatedly told, by several characters in the film, that she is obstinate and willful to a fault. The film depicts a philosopher at a crucial turning-point in her life, and it leaves her when she is deserted by all her former friends in the Jewish community. The film must be seen at least twice, I think, before it can be determined whether our protagonist is eventually triumphant or defeated.

sergepesic What is the role of an intellectual in an increasingly anti-intellectual world? In a world of uncontrolled and under-analyzed displays of emotion, room for an intellectual, even more so for a political philosopher, is getting smaller and smaller. Hannah Arendt's thesis about banality of evil stirred the world. Perhaps because it is more terrifying to see the potential for evil in benign looking individuals than in larger than life monsters. It seems almost that we are more comfortable with childhood ogres that are hiding under our beds. If evil could be anywhere or present in anybody, can we ever be safe? Brilliant film-making, a taught provoking masterpiece in unthinkable times.

Rodrigo Amaro I've tried reading Arendt's essay "Eichmann in Jerusalem" several times but I've always gave up for many different reasons (her extremely long paragraphs are awfully distractive, it's very easy to lose focus with her conflicted issues and almost no agreement). And with this film, I may try to read it again. Not because it was a spectacular movie, but mainly because it offered a more detailed perspective on someone who wrote one of the most important and historical literary works, and someone who at the end of the journey lost many friends to defend her ideals and concepts, formed with was presented to her during the judgment of a Nazi executor. The movie "Hannah Arendt" brings up the controversial highlight of her career with the publishing of a report of the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Haifa, in 1961 - the report came two years later. Here, it's explored her observations about one of the most criminal minds of WWII, a bureaucrat who sent millions of Jews to death camps, and an examination of the heated reactions coming from the public who strongly disagreed with Arendt's report on several levels. She concluded that he wasn't the monster he was painted to be, and wasn't even anti-semitic; instead the man was a civil officer who couldn't disobey orders because doing that would be perceived as negative, thus creating what she defined as the banality of evil, meaning that evil takes place when ordinary people are put into situations that encourage their conformity. Another shocking revelation (and bear in mind that she was Jewish herself) was the alarming fact that some Jewish community leaders were very cooperative with the Nazis, or considered helpful to the final solution.Margaret von Trotha's film captures the battle, a glimpse of the essence of such report and how the conception of the banality of evil was conceived. Arendt exposes the real Eichmann as a simple career employee, working for the state and just following orders; disobey them would cause severe punishment. So, it was easier of him to sign papers and send thousands to die in concentration camps than to say 'no' to deplorable and inhumane orders. With those views, she got plenty of negative feedback coming from allies, enemies, and people who felt betrayed by her report. The controversies goes to this date. Those questionings, dualities and doubtful issues are thought-provoking and what makes the movie really interesting, a fine observation of events highlighted with a phenomenal performance by Barbara Sukowa, who also gave a outstanding performance in another biopic directed by the same director, "Rosa Luxemburgo" (1986), and the always dedicate Janet McTeer in a good supporting role. That's the kind of story that should have been made years ago. It's not that it lost some importance but it has became too distant. However, it's far from going without criticism. It's deeply flawed and no, it has nothing to do with its historical accuracies - though it may have it's fair share of dramatic licenses. I felt the film very reserved, lacking of a more cinematic expression, at times some of the acting was very amateurish; the inclusion of flashbacks of love interlude with one of Hannah's teachers weren't defining to the plot; and it was hugely annoying having two languages spoken from time to time - this mixture of studio/producers hurt the project, I think. An American production would be fantastic (if only they were interested in it...). History as a fictionalized version always attracts viewers and the movie as a simplified story didn't disappoint. I liked it, just wish it could have been more. 7/10

zif ofoz Margarethe von Trotta's movie certainly has some 'acting issues'. Many of the performances are stiff and wooden and just lacking in enthusiasm. But Barbara Sukowa shines so brightly as Hannah that she lifts all others to an acceptable level.I consider it a privilege to have seen this movie because the story of this event, not just in Arendt's life, but in western history needs to be told. Arendt's philosophical interpretation of the Eichmann trial carries a lot of weight in the 'understanding' of the human condition. As horrible a person as Eichmann was, he was still human, and thanks to Arendt we can see where unquestioning obedience to authority will always produce a nightmare result.It's the story that will keep an interested person viewing this wonderful movie even with it's glaring weak points. It's all worth it to see and hear the impassioned speech Arendt gives near the end of the movie.