Chocolat

The movie Chocolat is a true discussion of what is the meaning behind intentions in our society. The portrait of Vianne Rocher and Comte de Reynaud share a dance that ask the view whom is the protagonist and whom is the antagonist. They each have a very solid ideal of what should happen in society that they are driven to a breaking point when a third party enters. Their images of God, behavior and reality shape the how these main characters are portrayed in the film.
On the surface Vianne Rocher and that Comte de Reynaud are extremely polar opposite characters. Comte as clearly a "cradle Catholic" who has conservative beliefs. He makes sure that the town clearly meets the ideals of God that he had for his entire life. In the film he goes as far as training a man so that is astringed wife would keep the ideal of his marriage alive. He is willing to do whatever it takes to shun people with different belief systems out of his town, in the action of putting up flyers and creating a shroud of not accepting other people. While Vianne is clearly more liberal, accepting. In the begging of the film, the director has the down as very dark place, while she is creating the world's most colorful chocolate shop.
I feel that they are not as different as we are lead to believe in the movie. Vianne Rocher and that Comte de Reynaud are so different, and yet so similar is the image of God and reality. As stated before: the oblivious difference is that Comte goes to the Church, while Vianne is considered an atheist. The time setting of the movie takes place during the season of Lent. A traditional common belief of people think that Lent is time to reflect and fast during the season. However it is quite the opposite: it is a season of changing our action. As Comte de Reynaud fasts during this time he is blinded by the changed in front of him, Vianne. While Vianne Lenten change is Comte de Reynaud, unlike Comte she is quite aware of the change. Vianne just moved into the town and is changing how the citizens taste chocolate. Although the change might be different, they are both experiencing it. Ultimately it is this change that will create the confect in the movie.
Another facet of how they are very similar is how they affect the world around them. As the Comte tries to mold the perfection in the citizens of the town though the Homily. While Vianne affects the progress and undermines the ideal norm of perfection. Changing the Homily, I find very disturbing, The major factor is; he is shaping the word of God. In the movie, he only changes the Homily in a negative manner. The two major ways that he changes is, shunning the chocolate shop and the river commune. The major reason for the shunning of the chocolate shop which Comte is against because of his Lenten fast. During this time Vianne is giving away chocolate to build her business for the future. The second time is when Comte is shunning of the river commune is more of a social justice issue which is forced upon him by the citizens in the town. While Vianne welcomes the river commune into her shop. They have a similar because they both think that good is happening because of their actions. A item to note is that because they both think they are doing good they are affecting each other's reality in a deconstructive manner.
I personally feel the only way to measure goodness is though is though causation, our actions create a cause that affect the people around us. Pure good only happen when pure good was the intent of the person in the first place. Goodness should never be measured in human fallacies nor habits. Every person breaks some sort of religious belief: like celebrating Kosher, or other religious standards. This brings a Paradox into my ideal of goodness, since we never know whom is doing good or not. For myself, I have had the purest intentions for something; alas I was not able to help because they did not lay any trust in me for whatever reason. Whenever good tries to happen there is some party trying to stop the good. This struggle of good and not-good hast to happen or the idea of good would not exist. Both characters sees themselves as good and the other as not-good.
If I was to measure the goodness of Comte de Reynaud and Vianne Rocher, I would say that they are doing not-good. For the reason being is the causation of each characters was to offset one another. The only reason Comte wrote in Homily not to eat chocolate was because he did not like having a chocolate shop open during Lent. With Vianne, the only reason she made whatever she did was for a necessary to survive or to show-up Comte. Comte did not like being shown up, so he tried to show up Vianne. In game theory, this is a classic game of escalation, and the final step was Serge Muscat setting fire to river commune's boats. Which both of them agreed at the end of the movie was a terrible thing. Resulting in tossing Serge Muscat out of the town.
As I said in what my definition of Goodness, Comte de Reynaud is becoming God's Voice which affects the entire town. In which causes a chain reaction that affects the town siding with him in both major issues that he meddles with. His attitudes and beliefs that influence the town are what drive the plot of the movie. Comte de Reynaud is the antagonist because every action that he takes opposes the protagonist, Vianne. The true direct result of Vianne's range of influence is the exact same as Comte. As it the burning of river commune; Comte influenced Serge to become good, while on the other hand, Vianne was influencing Josephine (Serge's wife) to become good.
In conclusion, Chocolat has so much destruction and distortion of what each of the characters think what they thing what is the goodness ideal. Since in the final scene of each of them seeing from each side and agreeing that both of them deep down is "good." We all hope that everyone is good. We must remember we are all similar when we share the range of influence.