wHY WOUldn't she just say she was illiterate?

You'd be surprised. Many people go very far in life and they are illiterate. At least back in those days they would. What I don't understand is why she did it.

My impression was similar to DaGunnerZ's: while Hanna could simply have admitted her illiteracy in court, her guilty feelings kept her from doing so. She would then have been incriminating the other former Nazi guards, and deep down she knew that, really, she was no more innocent than they were.

Yes but I think that in such extreme situation pride and shame would go away.

People talk about shame and pride and it is true these are the recurring themes of The Reader but if as a viewer, you believe there comes a point where all the pride and all the shame in the world don't amount to much in some extreme cases, you'll have a hard time accepting the decisions of both Hanna and Michael.

Okay, Hanna is ashamed of her illiteracy and can't publicly admit it, but then how about the shame of having ordered the deaths of 300 women. It's not just about being a guard anymore and following orders but about deliberately lying and pretending you decided to terminate the lives of innocent people. That's what she was accused of. Basically, Hanna Schmitt would rather be accused of such a horrific thing, to be remembered as an evil Nazi than an illiterate woman? We have to accept that from Hanna's standpoint, a reputation of illiteracy is worth the infamy of being remembered as a Nazis, that the boos, the insults and the spits in the face are a small price to pay to keep that secret.

Well, maybe that says a lot about Hanna, and maybe there's something genuinely and unconsciously evil in the way Hanna would rather trade her illiteracy for a horrific crime committed under the Nazi flag, just as if one was 'less shameful' than another. But I'm not sure I wanted to believe that's what was going in her mind. I appreciated the film and tried to understand the enigmatic personality of Hanna, but the whole trial part was extremely frustrating to watch, I had a hard time accepting that a woman would consider illiteracy as a more shameful thing than killing 300 people, what's more accepting to be remembered for a crime she didn't even commit. It's also about the legacy you leave, I agree illiteracy can be an extreme case justifying lies but can it be more extreme than the church fire and its deadly aftermath?

The worst thing is that during the trial, she always talks in such a way to maintain a cloud of ambiguity over the role she played, it's like some suicidal impulse. She can just say "I was following orders", instead of "it was necessary" or "I had to do it", she's like giving dim-witted comments that incriminate her more than simple but straightforward answers, it's like whatever Hanna can say, she'll say the worst possible thing to lose the jury's sympathy, no wonder all the other guards ended up conspiring against her.

I thought this "why doesn't the character just say that?" would only apply to Hanna... and young Michael. But even at the end, when older Michael meets the Jewish woman, he beats around the bush. Instead of saying "she was illiterate, which means that she didn't give any order", so she was as guilty as the other ones but no more. He says that she was illiterate, that he had a liaison with her, and it takes forever for the woman to understand where he's coming from.

But at least make sure that the woman gets what Hanne did... or didn't, for what it's worth, at least, say the truth. I liked the film but sometimes, it felt like the protagonists would never say what 'normal' people would say in such situations, I understand it's for dramatization, but it happens so many times it feels a little bit contrived.


Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather