Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

aarosedi Ms. von Trotta's film portrays Hannah Arendt at the time in her life when she wrote one of her most influential books, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, and the furor that came after its publication in 1963. There were two points presented in the New Yorker magazine article that she wrote, compiled shortly thereafter and published as a 300-plus-page book, which were considered the source of the grief among the Jewish community: First is her disdain in calling a Eichmann a "monster" and claims that that would only feed his illusions of superiority born out of his want to escape the humdrum existence of being regarded as just a mere cog in the Nazi killing machine with no motives or intentions or trace of mental illness whatsoever, somebody who is just following orders. Second is her view that the Jewish leaders have made decisions which endangered the Jewish people even more and the number of people that have perished in the Shoah would not have been as overwhelmingly immense if they were unorganized. It is the methodical and critical stance in detailing her observations of the Eichmann trial, that made her a much reviled figure in the Jewish community whose wounds and traumas brought on by WWII were still fresh, most of whom are either haven't even read the articles themselves or too much upset to continue reading it. It is Arendt's relationship with her close family and friends that makes most of the film, shows a more sensitive and sentimental side to a personality that has acquired quite steely reputation. The prominent men in her life that includes her affectionate husband, Heinrich Blücher (Axel Milberg), her earnest friend, Kurt Blumenfeld (Kurt Blumenfeld), her host in Israel when she covered Eichmann's trial, and her former lover/mentor and known Nazi sympathizer, Martin Heidegger (Klaus Pohl), whose memories she is seen reminiscing with utmost restraint. Her female confidants includes her gregarious friend Mary McCarthy (Janet McTeer) and her trustworthy secretary Lotte Köhler (Julia Jentsch). Barbara Sukowa's compelling take as the eponymous title character conveys the staedfastness that complements and coalesces well with the adept performances of the supporting and minor characters. The biopic's straightforward manner in presenting a life-snapshot of a well-known figure, the director's hand, the way the story was told, the musical score, or the original footage from the 1961 Eichmann trial doesn't take much attention away from the audience of their presence gives Ms. Sukowa's refined performance to shine through. Arendt's character is seen for the most part in this film to be puffing a cigarette, even at times where she is lying on a couch with eyes closed, contemplating in silence, brooding scenes which are not at all that long-winded, more of an enigma, actually.My rating: A-minus.

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.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Hannah Arendt" is a German film from 4 years ago that got writer and director Margarethe von Trotta and lead actress Barbara Sukowa international acclaim (again) and awards attention as well. I personally cannot see why though. This film here that runs for not much under 2 hours is a perfect example of how a historically relevant film should not look like. The main reason is Sukowa. She gives a performance that screams awards attention is packed with over-the-top acting in the worst possible way one can imagine and full of mannerisms that make her turn entirely style over substance. I do not think I have ever seen a worse performance that garnered so much awards attention. I could mention a dozen scenes, but honestly you will know what I am talking about when you watch the film. The script is not as bad as Sukowa's performance, but it is still fairly weak I must say. Also a great example of style over substance and it totally does not do any justice to the interesting story of the Eichmann trial.In theory, Arendt's approach to the matter emphasizing Eichmann's mediocrity instead of depicting him as a true evil is an interesting background and certainly a worthy foundation for a feature film. But beyond that interesting background and a solid beginning that is luckily not about Sukowa's character for once. In terms of the rest of the film, it is almost not bearable because of how hammy the lead actress is from start to finish. So it should not come as a surprise at all that the only good thing are the original recordings from the Eichmann trial. And these can hardly be attributed to von Trotta's work here. Given her recognition in the decades before this film, I certainly have to ask the question if she has lost her skill entirely. I cannot imagine for any reason why anybody would greenlight a film with such an unbearable lead performance. Highly not recommended.

albertopsg Hanna Arendt is a biopic of the homonymous German philosopher focusing on her coverage of the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem and the outrage that her articles on it ensued.As a historical document, the movie is gripping and mostly clear (though some lines of the discussions of her with her friends are a bit unclear) to laymen. I, for one, had never heard of Arendt and the 'banality of evil' before, but I believe that now I'd be able to talk about her thoughts with making a fool out of myself. For that, I thank the film.Though, on a movie-making viewpoint, it is a letdown. The flow of the film is pretty odd, with leaps in time and space (eg. suddenly she is in Israel), and the efforts to use transition scenes are pretty untimely. The dialogs aren't the best either, with strange remarks here and there, and philosophic remarks not everyone could grasp.Hannah Arendt is much more of a history and philosophy class, than a great movie. Though, it deserves a bit of appreciation for successfully exposing a great woman's thoughts to a new generation.