Play: ‘Good’

This was my first experience watching a National Theatre production screening in a cinema, not a

theatre. Perhaps the atmosphere of being in a theatre, in proximity to the performers and having my senses elevated by a live performance were missing, but if getting to the theatre is difficult, it was certainly a worthy alternative.

David Tennant was leading the role of John Halder, a professor who has joined the Nazi party in the years

approaching World War 2. Throughout the play we are taken through the years during the war up to

when the worst atrocities were being committed, showing not only the progression of war, but the

eventual, perhaps unexpected changes in John himself. An otherwise ordinary man, his story begins with details of his, by all accounts, secured happy marriage and fatherhood, whilst he cares for his ailing mother. Though seemingly burdensome, whilst he treats her well, he appears to hold a certain

stubbornness towards her. He confides a great deal in a friend Maurice, a Jewish man, about his home

life and musings about humanity, the Nazi regime, their persecution of Jews and the burgeoning war.

Eventually, John soon finds himself captivated by another woman, whom he begins an affair with and

years later devotes himself to, whilst still essentially having two wives.

John’s ideals are explored throughout, a slow burning of his own beliefs and actions are challenged, but without realising it he has morphed from a supposed normal, decent member of society, into someone he doesn’t recognize, or at least, someone he doesn’t recognize as doing wrong.

Whilst there are a number of characters, these are taken on by just three main actors, all equally strong

in their performances and given the opportunity to exhibit their versatility.

Flitting rapidly between scenes and scenarios, often to the point of confusion, this close knit casting

serves as an interesting technique. We are made aware that John has a habit of hearing the sound of

bands playing classical music, which further suggests the numerous, interspersed discussions with different characters, might actually be representative of his conscience. Are the other characters therefore even real, or characters of John’s mind, his running thoughts over what constitutes good and how he may have been seduced by the party?

Up until he has become so engrained within the party, he appears to convince himself with a deniability, that the party and the war are justified, that the ideals of the regime and atrocities against Jews is almost a necessary evil. It isn’t until he is fully suited and assigned duties at the camps that he realises the depths of his involvement, his accountability and participation, having to question if he has merely been doing a duty, is a dark minded, willing participant, or if he has been swayed by the influence of power, and ultimately, if he is inherently good after all.