del Valle Good

The title "Good" seems fitting for the film for many reasons. I think in this film John Halder is constantly battling with a definition for the word good, he battles with deciding whether or not his actions and decisions are good, but has a tough time deciding what he means by "good". The ultimate question is if "good" is what he sees as morally acceptable or if "good" is fitting the role expected of him by his country, family, and peers. He begins with a clear view of what he believes to be right and wrong, and what he sees as good, but as the movie plays on, we see him being persuaded and his views and opinions seem to change. Its then, when he sees the influence of others changing him, that his definition of "good" is blurred. He knows he values family and pride in his country, and that is "good" to him, however he also does not believe in the reasons for the current Nazi war, so which is more "good" pride and support in his country, or personal beliefs in moral values? By the end of the movie he finds his final and secure definition of "good" and goes with his intuition and follows his pride and supports his country, all while still maintaining his personal views.

I think because of the movie's way of showing Nazis as people, and showing a personal view point of one in particular, who had exceptional patriotic qualities, is why it was not published in the United States. Giving the "enemy" or the Nazis a face, and at that a relatable, well rounded face, would have made people in the country slightly reconsider the Nazis, and possibly not view them to be as bad as we had known.

Parker Good

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.