Reaction to Silberman and Romance in a Minor Key

I very much enjoyed Silberman's analysis of Kautner's Romance in a Minor Key, yet I felt as if there was something missing from his analysis. Silberman does an excellent job explaining the roles that Michael, Victor, and the husband play, in terms of both the narration and in the critique of National Socialism. What Silberman does not explain so well is the role that Madeleine plays, which is a shame because her character is the most enigmatic. This is not to say that Silberman doesn't shed any light on her character, because he spends a significant portion of the essay discussing the importance of her smile, her longing to escape, and her recapitulation, but Silberman never says what exactly it is she represents!

Romance in a Minor Key is an adaptation of the short story "Les Bijoux," in which "a low-level bureaucrat ... marries a beautiful young woman with a weakness for the theater and for ostentatious, fake jewelry." Silberman does recognize that by focusing the cinematic perspective away from the husband Kautner transforms the message of Maupassant's story. Perhaps he should have also looked at the difference in Madeleine between the two versions. In Maupassant's story, she is beautiful and the kind of woman who loves theater and ostentatious jewelry. This is not at all the Madeleine that Kautner gives us. Perhaps this Madeleine is similar in that she is merely arm-candy to her husband, but the Madeleine of Kautner's film is austere, wears subdued costumes, and is almost masculine looking. That the men of the film think she is beautiful makes her only more enigmatic to the audience. Kautner's decision to make Madeleine more androgynous suggests that Madeleine represents all citizens. Of course, this weakens Silberman's argument concerning Madeleine and male fantasies of domination, but I think this link would have made Silberman's overall analysis stronger.

My Post

Just for Prof. Figal and Elizabeth, I posted mine on the film page.

Silberman argues rather effectively a teleological interpretive approach to Romance in a Minor Key. The base idea as I understand it that Kautner used a narrative strategy that illuminates the metaphysical sacrifice of totalitarian subordination. While I agree with Silberman to the point that that the aspect of individual loss and consequences is certainly present in the narrative, I do not necessarily believe that it is was purposed in a propagandistic way. In other words, Kauner certainly gave bits and pieces in the thematic material--commenting on the authoritative state, but only so far as to expose the tragic melodrama of authoritarian rule. Silberman gives Kautner a little more propagandistic agancy than I am instictively comfortable with. I see Silberman's points, but I might argue that the commentary doesn't necessarily condition the audience into a conclusion like Jew Suss would. As a product of its time, the film reflects certain idiomatic traits, but the film may be misappropriated as a uniquely anti-authoritarian film, rather than a film which makes a running commentary.

Silberman Article

In reading the silberman article I found many aspects to be very interesting. The way that he described the characters and the director was very insightful. He made it very obvious that Kautner was a very different director than the one's that we are accustomed to seeing within the Third Reich. He was able to kind of get away from the obvious propaganda that was portrayed in many films. Kautner focused more on the morals of his characters without comparing them to the Jewish people to make a point to the rest of the world. Take Madeline's husband for example. He is portrayed as such an oblivious man, not attentive to his wife at all, and very selfish. When looking into his character it does not go with the times, because he is not lazy or an awful German, he is just trying to make due for his family. We are supposed to look and think that it is not his fault that he is so oblivious to what is going on in his own house. Then we look at Madeline, who is actually even more confusing. Madeline is such a polar opposite of what a "good German Woman" should be that it is almost ridiculous. Madeline is a married woman, and yet she is cheating on her husband, not with just one man but two. During this time period it is not acceptable for a woman to act that way, and even in this day and age it still isn't acceptable. I think this is the point that Silberman is trying to make in regards to Kautner. It is so amazing that he was even aloud to make these kinds of films during the Third Reich rule of Germany.

Silberman Article

Torn between the Three

As I was reading the Silberman article, I was trying to make any connection I could to how it represented Germany at the time. Initially assuming that there was some hidden subplot designed to make the Third Reich look good, seeing as how the film industry was under Goebbels control when this was released, I knew I had to look for more than waving flags and massive marching demonstrations. Yet the more I looked for this, the more I realized that the positive message was not there and, if anything, a more pessimistic message lay underneath it all.

This specifically happened when I reached the section in the article analyzing the different male suitors for Madeline (around page 3 or 4). I realized that each of the three men could represent various aspects of the authority under the Third Reich, each trying to control Madeline (the German empire) using its own means of influence. Silberman describes Madeline's husband as an "authoritarian personality whose identity rests on subordination." This could describe the aspects of the Third Reich that assumed all was well among its people and that its entire image was founded on the power given to it by the subordination of the people. Silberman then describes Victor as an "arbitrary power of authority to bring catastrophe or salvation." This would be the side of the ruthless side of the Third Reich, crushing subordinates and flaunting its power. Lastly, Silberman describes Michael as outside of these two poles as the artistic, expressionistic side of authority. In the Third Reich, this would be the emphasis on culture, arts, and the media to manipulate its subjects and acquire its desired means. Each suitor used its means of influence to pull Madeline towards himself, yet in the end she could not handle it any more and died. As a result, each suitor was defeated, unable to hold the same form of influence without its goal in reach. Likewise held true for Germany and the various forms of the Third Reich. Once the country fell, there was nothing left to influence.

Intruding

I agree with Silberman that the motif of intrusion is dominant in this film and introduced really well in the opening shot. When the film opens, the shot is of "public" space. We get a long, extended shot to take us through the setting of this film. Then we are introduced to the private aspect of the film, or as Silberman puts it, a theme of 'intrusion.' I think this is a great way of describing what we are seeing. The concept of intrusion has a recurring role throughout the film and it starts with this first shot of the unknown. To me it feels like the shot is saying "Once upon a time..." by panning from a public building to following a man who we are soon introduced to as Madeleine's husband. You have this claustrophobic feeling when viewing the bedroom; we only see it from one angle (we are never looking at the windows from Madeleine and her husband's P.O.V.) and this gives us a greater sensation of invasion of space. The ultimate intrusion that characterizes Madeleine's husband is when we find out about Madeleine prior to his discovery.

Ambiguity as a key factor in Romance In Minor Key

I would agree with Silberman's claim that Romance In Minor Key is, in significant ways, not in alignment with Nazi rhetoric of the time--in its "absence of violence, heroic themes, and visual monumentality" (as opposed to, say, Triumph of the Will, which incorporated these elements in copious amounts), its lack of a neat sense of closure at the film's end, even its French source material. Despite this, Silberman asserts, the potentially subversive effects of the film are "channeled into a direction that could not threaten the regime." In total, it is, naturally, not openly subversive (it could not possibly have been and hoped to have ciruculation), but instead was a rather ambiguous film that could perhaps be read as condemning the characters' actions (especially those characters having values not aligned with the Nazi party, such as Madeleine, who obviously is not a good example of the "proper" woman in the 3rd Reich), but at the same time could be read as critiquing a society in which individuals' true desires must be suppressed. In the context of the first type of reading, the film shows that when someone behaves out of alignment with Nazi values, as Madeleine did, she drags others down with her, even people with the "correct" authoritarian value orientation, like her husband-- this reading of the film is very favorable to a Nazi audience, because it would have showed the extreme danger and selfishness of defying the status quo for so-called personal happiness. However, the film is just as easily, if not more easily, readable as showing a situation from which there is no way out: Madeleine does not find happiness in the "correct" sources, nor is it indicated that she could have; and it can be very strongly argued that her husband's downfall is a result of his authoritarian personality, not in spite of it. What, in the end, is probably most striking and significant about this film as compared with others from the 3rd Reich is that it doesn't end neatly with a clear moral message-- this ambiguity would allow it to pass censorship, but at the same time would not require the film to strongly uphold the values of Nazi propaganda at the time.

A Blind Look

One part of the Silberman article that I found interesting was his discussion of the first shot of the film. He explains that the pan from the city skyline into Madeleine’s bedroom to her motionless face signals that the film will be removed from the public space and signals intrusion into Madeleine’s most private place. This intrusion makes the characters the “passive victims of an outside, unpredictable power”(84).  I think that this is an accurate analysis of the opening shot. By first establishing the city as the public sphere, Kautner makes the viewing of Madeleine sleeping feel like an intrusion into her privacy. This mirrors the other intrusions into her private life by Victor and Michael. However, the analysis of this shot can be taken even further. 

Although the audience is given an intimate view of Madeleine’s bedroom that makes us believe that we have an intimate relationship with her, she is laying motionless. We do not know whether she is sleeping, pretending to sleep or even dead. In this sense, we are very similar to the men in the film. Madeleine’s husband is married to her and is so blinded by their simple relationship that he cannot connect with her and does not even attempt to understand her true feelings. Although Madeleine and Michael are in love and seem to have the strongest connection among the characters in the film, Michael is blinded by her smile and beauty and cannot see why she does not want to leave her husband to marry the man she loves. Victor has a large amount of power over Madeleine as her husband’s boss and with the knowledge of her affair, but is blinded by her beauty and his power and cannot see that she will never give in to his demands. In this way, the opening shot gives the appearance of an inside look into Madeleine’s life, but her silence and the audience’s blindness do not allow a peek into her soul as the window generally admits.

Silberman - The expense of knowledge

Silberman explains the husband's character in Romance in a Minor Key as a man whose "moral ideology is a form of protective nonseeing, a kind of self-preservation at the expense of knowledge" (87). Throughout the movie it is evident that Madeleine's husband is unaware of her unhappiness and is content with her silence and submission to his desires. His is content with his lifestyle and avoids any possibility to learn more about his wife and about the life around him. His routine of gambling and simply his routine nature in general illustrate his self-centered personality which does not seem to look outside the box and is quite comfortable in his complacency. Silberman points to the first scene in the movie which provides strong evidence for this, which we also discussed at length in class. I think another important scene comes from near the end of the movie, where Madeleine "thanks him" for everything. Her husband is completely oblivious to her feelings and to her unhappiness with the life he has provided, and instead of hearing the tone of her voice and the helplessness she shows in her eyes, he leaves her once again to join a card game. His character is an ideal example of an ordinary, non-heroic individual, who is comfortable with obedience and authority, and does not question the motives of others and those who are in charge.

Silberman ends the article by saying, "Romance in a Minor Key constitutes a narrative discourse on the loss of illusion, elaborating on imaginary, protected space of privacy, identified with a spectacular position of helplessness and escapist desire at a historical juncture when many Germans were beginning to expect the impending collapse of the fascist regime" (96). This historical junction is an important aspect to note - as the end of the war approaches it becomes increasingly evident to the Germans that the turnout they had hoped for and fought for was soon to be destroyed. We spoke in class about how Kautner tended to things a bit off from the what was termed the "cultural movement" of the period, but I think Kautner is right on track here, he just does it in a way that makes you think about what you are witnessing. I think this is also an important point because one thing that we have touched on is the importance of "not questioning" what has been presented. The husband embodies this idea - he decides to be content with his place in life and through his self-righteous attitude he preserves himself and his lifestyle at the expense of learning about his wife's feelings. In the end, he learns the truth about his wife and her death leaves him alone with unanswered questions. Kautner challenges the audience to ask questions and discuss what they have been presented with, which illustrates the changing attitude of Germans and those witnessing the downfall of the German Reich. I think Kautner was right on target here, even though in many ways we are unsure of the moral to the story. This ambiguous moral, however, may have been what Kautner wanted to leave us with in order to motivate and fuel discourse that had for so long been avoided by the masses.

Silberman's Explanaition

Silberman's assertions in his article regarding the basis for character interaction in Romance in a Minor Key is possibly the most significant component of the film. Kautner constantly relies on the unintentional transfer of disinformation from one character to another as a forwarding point of several aspects of the film. In many ways Silberman's explanation of the film as periods of "blindness" and "seeing" is the fundamental driver for both its plot and theme. Silberman comments on the plot as several recurrences of a formula in which a lack of understanding leads to tragedy. Madeline's husband resides in a constant state of obliviousness to his wife and her emotional distress and as a result she ends up killing herself. Michael interprets a smile and a love affair erupts which also bears partial causal responsibility for Madeline's suicide.

If we extend this idea into the thematic realm then that moral suggestion which was so elusive in class on tuesday becomes relatively apparent. Kautner, if he is making an moralistic claim at all with the film, is in many ways suggesting the necessity of guarding oneself against misinterpretation and maintaining an awareness of our surroundings. The film suggests that unproven confidence in one's schema is a trap all to easy to fall into and one which can often bear with it disastrous consequences.

Romance & Social Norms

The Silberman article makes a strong case for Kautner's use of an emotionally weak female as a symbol for the clash between individual happiness and social norms. Throughout the film Madeleine is pushed from one male to the next and each time there is something missing from the relationship. With Michael she lacks stability, with her husband she lives without love, with Victor she retains little honor, this presents her with few chances for her own happiness. Society dictates that she should either remain with her husband or leave him legally and marry Michael, yet this does not happen. The plot of the film begins with Madeleine's seemingly anti-social norms acceptance of Michael's advances. She acts against fascist teachings and talks to the well-spoken composer. Silberman rightfully notes that she acts outside the bounds of traditional fascist female roles through her stimulation of male desire and male fantasies of domination and this seems to give her some power. The social norms of female meekness appear to be broken by her actions; however, upon closer inspection she, and the film, actually reinforces fascist male dominance. Although Madeleine has the power to say "no" to Michael and Victor and to leave her husband she chooses to follow the wills of all her lovers. The film portrays her as the true fascist dream of "yes-men" citizens, devoted Nazis who will always agree with figures of authority. Kautner creates three male characters whom exert natural authority in the face of Madeleine. Michael and Victor are wealthy and her husband is knowledgeable about accounting which is corroborated by his firms trust in his ability to uncover the accounting scheme. The film teaches that a woman cannot say "no" to figures of authority and that this is her undoing. The fascist state creates citizens who act as drones carrying out the will of those above them, vocationally or romantically.

Silberman article in discussing 'The husband'

" In his anti erotic conjugal life and his subaltern position, the husband represents the authoritarian personality that so readily accepted the dictates of German fascism." I think this is the strongest point made in the Silberman article. I believe that the husband illustrated the perfect balance of obedience, yet independence to display the characteristic of the ideal German fascist. The husband's ability to live a  in a constant and simple world, a world in which much change is not needed, displays his unwillingness to challenge authority. He enjoys his life, even though we are presented with the fact that he yearns for more. We can see his desire of wanting more with the evidence of his shirt cuffs. These cheap cuffs provide the facade of a expensive tailored shirt. Although he does aspire to want more, he is more than satisfied with what he has and has no problem working where he does. Ironically however, he is an authority figure in the movie. "A strong identification with authority coupled with an equally strong rejection of the 'Other', especially of those considered socially inferior, feeds his rigorous sense of conformity and moralism." I thought that Silberman made a great point of this by citing the example of the bank clerk who condemned the man with problems with his wife at home. In his condemnation of the man he catches, he is unable to realize that in punishing the culprit, he is also placing judgement on his own wife and his own circumstances. I couldn't agree with Silberman when he said that little to no propaganda could be found in this film. Although Faukner always seemed to created movies out of their time frame, I found the husband to have a lot of the 'Nazi' ideal: a hard worker who does what he is told and is happy with that. Although he submits to authority, he is also able to be very authoritative. He admires those above him and condemns those below him. Although this film is located in a land we cannot identify and the film does not support the progression of the war, we are still faced with the characteristics of the husband-which mirror the characteristics of the Nazi ideal. The icing on the cake is the fact that the husband remains unnamed throughout the film. I couldn't help but identify with the Hitler youth quex in which the characters were unidentified also!!!!

Silence vs. Expression

In class on Tuesday we touched on the idea of silence in the film Romance in a Minor Key, so I found it interesting that Silberman addresses this theme as well, especially since he adds in the theme of expression throughout the film as well. As Silberman points out, the Madeleine is characterized by her silence throughout the film, as she is oppressed and unable to fully express herself except through her affair with Michael. As we noted, her husband is always speaking at her and to her but never with her, for he never asks her questions to which she could respond. Furthermore, he is always assigning tasks to her, yet all the while making her feel respected and loved through his adoration of her, which only serves to further her guilt and her silence. Her inevitable silence is even seen in some of her moments with Michael, particularly in the scene when she will not answer his question about coming back to visit him, and also, as Silberman points out, in the scene in the countryside when she refuses to talk about what she is feeling for fear that it will then disappear if she says it aloud. This scene is very representative of Madeleine’s insecurities concerning her own ability to express herself, and her own sense of oppression and inferiority in terms of her social status as both a woman and a member of the middle class. Silberman notes that it is her fear that speaking her dreams aloud will only further remind her of their impossibility.

On the contrary, however, there is Michael, who as Silberman points out is the embodiment of “expression” due to the fact that he is an artist, and furthermore a composer, therefore it is job to always express his emotions. In fact, it is this sheer need to express something that initially leads him to Madeleine and her enigmatic smile. His effusive and dramatic personality plays off of Madeleine’s silence, for since she is “passive,” as Silberman describes, it is easy for Michael to project all of his emotions and inferences onto her. Overall, it seems that Kautner may be making a statement in the film about the erotic desire attached to women who appear passive and unthreatening, and the dire consequences that can result from projecting an image onto someone that they did not warrant.

Romance in A Minor Key is a Major Ploy

Unfortunately for those in the audience of movie theaters during the reign of the Third Reich. There was no separation between propaganda and "unpolitical entertainment", despite arguments Silberman discusses in his article about Romance In A Minor Key. Keeping in mind the complete control National Socialists had on all media concerning Germany, regardless of the seemingly harmless film, there are many elements that regard towards typical paternalistic stereotypes in the film. It is simply a "literary adaptation, dramatic melodrama..." (81) instead of a clear film shouting ideas at its audience. Madeline's characterization as a woman who "demands accountability and an unwavering sense of propriety and virtue" (82) correlates with the Germans brainwashing of women at an early age, changing them to think that being "hyper-feminine" like the Western world did not bode well in the harsh climate of Germany. She shows the personality and values of a German woman raised in the Third Reich as she does not accept Michael's proposal due to her loyalty to her husband. An example of the film not literally throwing information at you, but characterizing a main individual in the film as a product of German civilization is a sly way of proposing ideas to viewers. Madeline's husband represents National Socialism by his upstanding position, being a hard worker, and coming home to his "obedient" but strong wife who waits on his arrival everyday. "Duty, honor, orderliness, and status are the obsessions of his authoritative personality," (85) which are specific adjectives describing the goals of achievement by the Third Reich. However, his "physical, social, and emotional prison" (83) he has kept Madeline in represents the hold the Third Reich has on their women, allowing them to believe they have freedom, and power, only to realize they are always second class citizens to their husbands. The aregument on "the right to be happy," (91) is one that has frequented discussion on the position of women within the Third Reich. Why is it that Madeline feels the need to commit suicide to escape the prison she feels is her life? This might explain why the film was the only one to receive such critical acclaim as a foreign film because it had such subliminal messages from within the lives of those living in the Third Reich. It may have not been promoting how great and wonderful Germany was, like Ufi (Nazi production company) wanted, however there definitely was a message and it was clearly seen to all those who cared to understand it.

The Existential Crisis of Madeleine and the German People

Respond to some aspect of the Silberman article. Do you agree or disagree with his point? Interpret his point, using other articles or the film to support your argument.

Silberman begins his last paragraph by stating that "Romance in a Minor Key constitutes a narrative discourse on the loss of illusion, elaborating an imaginary, protected space of privacy identified with a spectator position of helplessness and escapist desire at a historical juncture when many Germans were beginning to expect the impending collapse of the fascist regime" (96). I found this line, and the entire last paragraph, to be quite interesting and I would certainly have to agree with Silberman's thoughts here. As I watched the film Sunday night, I wondered to myself how this film could have possibly functioned as a Nazi film for, as Silberman remarks only a few lines before, most Nazi films at that point were encouraging light, uncomplicated comedies and not films that dealt with existential loss. I certainly could be mistaken, but it would seem that this film, having used mirrors to convey the existential conflict of Madeleine, is, itself, a mirror for Germany in 1942/43. Just as Madeleine is stuck in a world wishing to escape but recognizing her helpless position, so too, as Silberman alludes to, were the Germans at this time beginning to realize their own helpless position. As he writes on page 95, "By early 1943 morale at home was beginning to sink seriously owing to expanded air attacks against German cities and the growing difficulties in supplying the civilian population with necessary goods." Thus, just as it is for Madeleine that "there will be no escape from the everyday..." (89) so too was the case of the Germans when this film was made and released. What makes this all the more fascinating is that the film, functioning as a mirror, reflects this existential crisis back onto individuals. For a country whose people had been dogmatically told to think of itself as an "imagined" community functioning together as a New Germany, and in a country where mass rallies were used to isolate an individual so they would identify with a larger whole, this film forced the individual watching it to deal with the crisis on their own...something even more existentially painful. Just as Madeleine felt alone and abandoned in the world, so too the individual watching the film must have felt, stuck in the inescapable bird cage that always sits next to the window the authorities will perpetually close. The spectator, whom Silberman states would certainly feel abandoned and betrayed by the "film's desperate escape into interiority" could, in turn, transfer all blame to those who were misusing their authority while continuing to function and hold up a system that kept those authorities in power. In this sense, the individual specator would have been making an existential move that would, at the end of the day, keep them from the suicide Madeleine herself commits, although in doing so, the German people were in effect sealing their own fate...the continued suffering and eventual downfall of their country.

The Husband: a National Socialist (Gone Bad)

In his article titled The Illusion of Escapism: Helmut Käutner’s Romance in a Minor Key, Marc Silbmerman describes Madeline’s unnamed husband as a representation of an ideal National Socialist. He writes, “In his antierotic conjugal life and his subaltern position, the husband represents the authoritarian personality that so readily accepted the dictates of German fascism” (85). This notion allows for an interesting analysis of the film, especially when considering Silberman’s previous assertion that the husband’s interest in gambling (presented as a flaw in his morality) subjects him to a world of risk taking. I find it very interesting that gambling is his central flaw, especially because his participation in a game of cards ultimately provides his wife with the opportunity to commit suicide.
On the one hand, it is difficult not to see the husband as an embodiment of National Socialism. He is humble and hard-working, and is certainly willing to accept his role under the authority of others. On the other hand, his gambling addiction allows one to see him in a different light, as a person who is almost, but not quite, the perfect National Socialist. Gambling, rather than enjoying time with his wife is often his number one priority. In the film’s opening scene, as the husband returns from a night of card playing, the spectator sees a husband so oblivious to his surroundings that he holds a (one-sided) conversation before realizing his wife’s unconscious and dieing condition. This obliviousness contrasts his orderliness and makes it difficult to determine whether or not this man is truly an ideal person according to Nazi ideals. Gambling has disillusioned him to the extent that he is no longer able to recognize such a drastic problem in his household.
I find the argument that the husband is an ideal National Socialist unconvincing, because a truly self-disciplined individual would have never gone away and gambled. Furthermore, he would have never had his life so drastically changed by outside and inferior forces. At one point, he expresses his desire to gamble through statements such as, “I am itching to play,” emphasizing his inability to fight off his risky desires. I think that the husband must be seen more as a representation of what can happen when National Socialist ideals are not entirely upheld, as he is ultimately punished by losing his wife. A real National Socialist would have had the self-discipline to have seen everything coming, or rather, would have never been at risk for such misfortunes, especially at the hands of other less than ideal individuals.

Romance in a Minor Key: Escapism?

I agree with Silberman that Romance in a Minor Key is “a film that cannot be reduced to an ideological or propagandistic prescription.” However, I believe, as Shulte-Sasse says, that few, if any, films made during the Nazi regime can be pigeon-holed as purely propaganda vehicles. This film differs from the other films of the time period in that it does not attempt to fit neatly into the Nazi ideology. Silberman claims that the narrative creates a “loss of illusion, elaborating an imaginary, protected space of privacy identified with a spectator position of helplessness and escapist desire.” He goes on to show that this is relevant to the historical time and climate. I agree. The film is fraught with decisions that lead to only negative outcomes. It seems as though Madeleine has no options except to accept unhappiness. This provides the viewer with a sense of unease and even helplessness, much like the German viewers of the time would probably be feeling with the weight of the impending loss of the war on their minds. Käutner further exacerbates these worries when he does not even suggest which way Madeleine should turn. Not only does she have no options, but not even the all-mighty escapist power of film can provide one for her. It is as if film, the escapist medium, is not providing the viewer with an escape at all, but with a mirror to their own situation and subconscious emotions. Silberman seems to think that the film allows the spectator to “transfer any sense of responsibility to those who misuse their authority,” probably referencing Victor as the main source of conflict in the film. However, I do not believe the sense of responsibility is that fixed at all. The force of the film lies in the fact that there is not an easy cause, an easy solution, or an easy resolution, which mirrors the progression of the war for the viewer.

Silberman Article

“Each relationship is premised on a state of nonknowledge that always leads to an action with destructive consequences” (page 85).

This is my favorite line Silberman’s analysis of Romance in a Minor Key. I think it accurately describes the fundamental flaws that lead to the downfall of every character in a completely succinct way. The most obvious relationship based on the absence of knowledge is the relationship between Madeleine and her husband. Aside from the secret affair between Madeleine and Michael, there is a basic lack of conversation between the married couple. This indicates that neither person in the relationship understands how the other person is feeling. While it is easy to place the blame on Madeleine’s husband, she does not seem to be knowledgeable about why he constantly plays cards or is so organized. There is a lack of communication between the couple, which leads to Madeleine’s affair and the couple’s demise.

Another relationship premised on the state of nonknowledge is Madeleine and Michael. While some might argue that Madeleine is her true self with her love, he does not seem to be knowledgeable enough on why Madeleine will not leave her husband. It seems fairly obvious to me that Madeleine’s sense of duty to her husband prevented her from leaving him entirely; yet, Michael either refuses to acknowledge this or just doesn’t know Madeleine’s true feelings. It is possible that is the couple had had a discussion about Madeleine’s true feelings towards her husband they would have come to a different conclusion then just returning to her normal life.

Silberman Article on "Romance in a Minor Key"

Respond to some aspect of the Silberman article. Do you agree or disagree with his point? Interpret his point, using other articles or the film to support your argument.