In my opinion, this film was named “Good” because it’s about seemingly good people put in to a horrible situation. John, for instance, is a good person at first glance. He had a wonderful family with his first wife. He took care of his mother. He had an important job as a professor. He was an all around “good” person. In fact most of the people were “good” people. The Jewish community were people who were thought to not be good enough for the perfect Aryan race. The issue that arises is what actual “good” people do in certain situations.
The picture with John and Anne seems like in the eyes of the Nazi party and John’s as well, the two of them would make the perfect, happy, good couple. She’s young, pretty, and well-learned. He’s an intelligent, older man with a promising position in the Nazi party. They portray the ideal couple, giving John’s new colleagues a good first impression of him.
Now, why this film was not shown in the U.S. doesn’t really make much sense to me. I feel like maybe the U.S. felt like surrounding a movie around a man in the Nazi Party and his dealings with the concentration camps we’re too contradictory to what America supposedly stands for. Personally, I don’t think the U.S. should have been against showing it. The underlying basis of this movie is what happens when supposedly good people get thrown into horrible situations and how their values and their morals help them cope.
You need to be much more analytical about your mise en scene. You need to discuss at least three elements and you need to relate your analysis of those to the meaning of the frame.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised you think he had a wonderful family. His children were always fighting; his wife was frenetic, and his mother was demented.