People always divide the characters on the screen into so-called "good guys" and "bad guys", hoping to punish evil and promote good, and the ending will be happy.
Hannah's truth is a little cruel. In the face of such banal evil, how should one judge?
Because people are in the system. Human nature and behavior are distorted here. Hannah said in court statement: Not enough room; I'm the guard and it's my job.
From the perspective of the Nazis, or the system at that time, combined with his character and life background, this is a dutiful guard; from the perspective of the current court judge: she is a person who does not know how to reflect on Hitler's cruelty and humanity. Destroyed woman.
What do you think?
After seeing my humble and mediocre work, decades later, how should I face my perhaps mediocre decades? At that time, how should I face myself when I find that my decades of work cannot be of any benefit to society or even to myself, and it may even be harmful? Am I responsible for my current "unit", or am I responsible for the overall social value orientation? Can the people in the system still represent themselves? Does the criterion of good and evil have a time attribute? Can we completely deny Hannah like the radical student in the show?
Germany, where philosophers were born, gave birth to the Nazis, and so many independent and wise minds were lost in the Führer's speech. I do believe that it is difficult to break through the limitations of history and space in a smart mind.
Hannah Arendt, another Hannah, saw the mediocre, even pitiful, part of Eichmann's sin. Who is this poor little man responsible for?
View more about The Reader reviews
