Wow! Such a good movie.

Masterful Movie

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

"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.

Hannah Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) is a writer philosopher professor working in NYC. It's 1960. Nazi Adolf Eichmann has just been captured and is to stand trial in Israel. Arendt, who left Germany in 1933 and was held in a french detention camp, offers to go to cover the trial for the New Yorker. She finds Eichmann to be a nobody, and a bureaucrat. She also finds the trial to be not about Eichmann but a much more general indictment of the Third Reich. Her husband has health problems. She is being pushed by the publisher. She writes a controversial article explaining Eichmann's evil intent as simply unable to think and describes the Jewish leadership who cooperated with the Nazis one way or another. It's met with anger and even death threats. She answers her critics with a lecture to her students in which she describes the banality of evil.It's a fascinating political debate and a slice of history. It takes this story to harsh out some ideas about the nature evil. Sukowa gives this person a powerful presence. However I don't think it digs into her personality deep enough. Where does she get her sensibilities? What was her childhood like? What was her life in Europe like? I like the philosophy debate but I want more of her personal story.

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.