Diagonaldi Very well executed

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

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

blanche-2 This is a fascinating look at Hanna Arendt, a German-American philosopher who in 1961 reported on the trial of Adolf Eichmann for the New Yorker. A huge controversy erupted.Arendt left Germany in 1933 for France, but when Germany invaded France, she found herself in a detention camp. When the film begins, she is a happily married woman with friends such as the writer Mary McCarthy, and she is a professor at, among other places, the New School in New York City.Hanna is very excited about covering the trial, but her husband, Heinrich, is afraid it will take her back to those dark days. While observing Eichmann, Arendt is struck by the fact that he was an ordinary man with nothing special about him. This causes her to think about the nature of evil itself. She decides that he's not a monster but a person who suppressed his conscience in order to be obedient to the Nazis. She thus created the concept of the "banality of evil."She believed also that some Jewish leaders at the time had fallen into this trap and unwittingly participated in the Holocaust. Her critics failed to understand her meaning.In some camps, her New Yorker articles were not well received, as she was seen as a heartless turncoat who blamed the victims. Hanna has to defend her ideas, and the price she pays for them is high.Barbara Sukowa does a magnificent job as Arendt, showing the woman's brilliance, courage, affection for friends and family, and hurt when some people she loved turned against her. It's surprising that she was met with as much disdain as she was -- but Arendt did not believe in blind adoration of any group. She took people on an individual basis. As far as the banality of evil, evil has always had the ordinary face of people sitting back and doing what they're told. Or, as Martin Luther King said, doing nothing. I'm sure many of us have experienced this in the workplace -- I know I did. It's then that you realize the true nature of most people. Everyone can say they have ethics - but do they have ethnics when they stand to lose something?Beautifully directed by Margarethe von Trotta, who also co-wrote the screenplay. A difficult subject made clear, a complicated woman understandable -- no small feat. A thought-provoking film.

Al Rodbell There are momentous events that shape our world, with individuals, Hitler, Napoleon, Marx -- who take the stuff of their birth world and shape it into something different. Those who capture forces and marshal them for revolutions, are both hated and loved, saviors and monsters -- and the winners write the history.True Philosophers transcend this. They remove themselves from those who hate and admire such transforming figures, and by doing so risk becoming alienated from their own group. Thus is the case of Hannah Arendt in the period of this film. As a student she had a love affair with Heidegger, one of the great philosophers of the early 20th century - who as a human being joined the Nazis.Arendt, being a Jew, in a covering the trial of Adolf Eichman, became the thinker, the philosopher, while those survivors of the Holocaust were in pain over their loss, and in no mood to intellectualize the perpetrators.Although I lived only miles from Arendt at the time of this film, I was far removed from the academic culture described, and now more than a half century later, look back with a top of nostalgia and remorse. I knew some who survived the death camps, and certainly could identify with those who reviled Arendt for not loathing Eichman.Yet these are the challenges of today. We have child terrorists such as one who just killed nine people in a black church our of the same inculcated hatred as the Nazis towards Jews. Arendt's thinking is valuable, and needed since the disease of hatred of outsiders does not seem to be fading, but rather is a constant recurrence of humanity.

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

JPfanatic93 Biopic about the noted 20th century Jewish-German philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), played impeccably by Barbara Sukowa. Directed by Margarethe von Trotta, the movie mainly examines Arendt's reports on the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Israel for the American magazine The New Yorker, as well as the overwhelming critique, following their publication, on her controversial findings regarding the mentality of the architects of the Holocaust. Arendt's conclusion is that they were not evil inhuman monsters, nor even purely driven by antisemitist motivations, but instead that they were everyday bureaucratic nobodies who viewed their atrocities simply as a job that needed to be carried out as effectively as possible. This new concept of the 'banality of evil' caused widespread criticism of Arendt's philosophical thinking, and caused her to be much maligned by fellow Jews, including people close to her. The movie covers all of this turbulence in Arendt's life, but does so in an overly stiff manner, rendering both Hannah and her intellectual antagonists rather emotionless thus sadly underscoring the popular opinion that philosophy is dull. It also makes it uneasy for the audience to really care about Hannah's tribulations as she undergoes them with minimal visible emoting. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective the topics covered remain intriguing, aided by good performances throughout as well as the terrific use of actual footage of the real Eichmann at his trial, indeed showing him to be a single-minded man devoid of critical thinking or even remotely interested in the moral issues while carrying out his former onslaught. The movie does do a botched job of portraying the romantic relationship between Arendt and her mentor – and eventual Nazi philosopher – Heidegger, which is touched upon in a series of short flashbacks which hint at its importance, but eventually fails in being fleshed out in a satisfactory manner that helps us better understand Arendt. It's a missed opportunity, but ultimately not completely harmful to the overall plot. Warning! Due to heavy smoking by Arendt throughout the whole of this picture, this movie may cause irreversible damage to your lungs.