I'm not sure how but I actually inverted this assignment in preparing for the class, so I actually watched Good and read Bent before the class began. Upon realizing my mistake, I decided to research both (in book and film format) in my research I found a site that reviewed the play by C.P. Taylor and the title was, "Good-The Ultimate Question of What Would you do?" I felt like this was an undeniably relevant question to both texts/films.
It seems that generally, when we are presented with literature or media regarding Holocausts we often see the hardships bared by one group and the unforgivable cruelties perpetrated by the opposing party. When questions of morality are presented in reference to those that are being victimized, I find it is much more difficult to have an objective opinion. In these circumstances it seems that any bad is simply bad and those who were not aiming to shield their fellow victims from cruelty and injustice are morally reprehensible. However, I think what's truly difficult is understanding the mindset of a human being who exists for an extended period of time solely in "survival mode."
For example, it seems that Max's actions towards Rudy were completely unforgivable, but at the same time Max was simply a human being trying to survive. Whether it be by lying, manipulating, or performing sexual favors, he did every single thing he could to stay alive. Not that I'm condoning these actions, but I think it's naive to place judgment on Max's behavior if one has never been faced with the circumstances of preserving their own life.
Using the same logic, it would seem that we should avoid placing blame on John because he was simply the victim of the manipulations of the Nazi party. However, John was in a very different place than Max, he was a non-Jewish, straight German man. He had very little to fear in this environment other than his own ideals that conflicted with the Nazis. I think this are two very different places to be stationed within a society that is exterminating its own people. Not that I believe John could have revolted and fought against the Nazis, but I simply think he had many more options than Max did.
I think in reading/watching and analyzing these two texts, we must ask ourselves, "what would I do in this circumstance?" Would you fight for your life, would you comply with the Nazis, would you flee, would you hide, all are choices that had to be made during this period, and all led to indeterminable, yet extreme futures.
The question “what would you do” is a very good way to put the distinction of the roles of victim and victimizer into perspective. It is easy to say that Max is a victimizer because he has trampled over everyone else to survive. However, we have never been in this exact situation and felt the fear that he has. The desire to survive is a very strong human instinct that is hard to ignore. It is difficult to say that we would not deny knowing one of our friends of out fear that we might be killed for simply saying “yes he is my friend.” Max is put in an impossible situation in which he has been traumatized over and over. Rudy is brutally beaten and Max is forced to have sex with a dead woman. It has driven him mad, as seen in the train scene where he tell himself all that is happening around him is in fact not really happening. When put into this frame of mind, it is difficult for me to say that Max is ever a victimizer after he is deported, he simply becomes more and more of a victim which drives him to do anything to survive.
ReplyDeleteI see where you are coming from, but Halder and Max did everything in their human power to survive. One was good at it and the other didn’t know how to handle it. Although Halder was on the other side, he was doing what he had to. If he didn’t do his job, someone else was going to do it. Is it better to have someone who has remorse for his actions rather than someone who feels nothing while determining your fate. Another possibility is that the person put in charge could take pleasure out this area of work. Plus if he decided to stand up for what is right or sneak around the consequences would most likely be death or extremely severe. Most people avoid punishment in general because they are able to forecast the extreme outcome of their actions. Over all great blog, I was able to clearly see exactly where you were coming from.
ReplyDeleteIn times of turmoil like the Holocaust many decisions were made. Good and bad, by both sides. It is these decisions that define and shape us as human beings. In these two particular cases, we find that when presented with a "survival mode" situation, Max and John both took the route that presented less difficulty and more assurance of their survival. They made this decision regardless of who it affected. This is a decision based from fear. Granted, their situations were different, Max being gay, and John straight. However, they made the decisions they made to survive. We can question them all day but in the end would we do anything different? Would our morals and beliefs be strong enough that we would accept death rather than go against what was true and right? We can only hope that we can learn from the past, from events like the Holocaust, and hope that it will effect our future decisions for the better.
ReplyDeleteYour point about the difference between Halder and Max is well made; however, I would like you to point to specific scenes in the plays and the films to support your position. You also might take into consideration that the play, GOOD, is very different from the film. How so, and why? Also, Max refuses to leave Rudy when he could protect himself by taking his uncle's advice. Why does he refuse?
ReplyDeleteI like your comments about not being able to judge these people of the positions they were in. Although, Max and Halder were in completely different situation, each were trying to survive. Max wanted to live and fought to save his life. Halder was trying to survive in a society that was rapidly changing. Unsure of what to do, Halder let others influence his decision to become a part of the Nazi party.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think even though both of them started out as victims they did shift to the stand point of a victimizer. Max did directly take part in killing Rudy. He did not just remain silent. Halder did not even realize his role or potential role in killing Jews. It is hard to judge because, like you said, they were in survival mode trying to remain alive. I'm sure the desire to live is strong enough to make a individual go to extreme lengths.