The film is entitled Good because it explores Halder, a traditionally “good” person who looks out for his mother, wife and kids. Halder gradually becomes a part of a group he once opposed, while remaining oblivious to the atrocities they are committing. Halder, who is a “good” person does nothing and allows evil to thrive. The movie shows that those with even the best intentions were not immune from becoming involved in the cruel things Adolf Hitler bestowed on the world prior to and during World War II. I think this is also part of the reason the movie was not distributed in the United States. The tendency when including Nazis in movies has been to use them as the evil villain with whom it's difficult to sympathize. The idea that there might have been Nazis in Germany during Hitler's time who weren't rotten to the core has largely been avoided by filmmakers. In Good a person could easily sympathize with Halder.
The picture relates to the title because this is when John Halder is no longer the “good” man he was at the beginning of the movie. The picture shows him at the Nazi party and he has left his wife and is now with Anne. He has become a part of a group that he wished to never be a part of and he is now involved with things he initially wanted to avoid.
You do not do mise en scene analysis. Rather you simply say what you think the frame is about. You need to discuss dominant, character proxemics, lighting, etc; otherwise, you are not doing mise en scene analysis. If Halder does nothing at all, how can you claim he is good?
ReplyDelete