The problem of pain

Forbidden Games is a French film made in 1952. It is one of the more poignant war films I have ever seen. The main character is a 5 year old French girl named Paulette. Her parents and dog are killed right before her eyes as they attempt the flee the Nazis. She doesn't understand anything about death, and clings tenderly to her dog. Another lady sees that the dog is dead and throws it into a river. Paulette runs after the dog. In doing so she runs into a young boy named Michel. Michel convinces his family, that live on a small farm, to take her in. He does what he can to teach Paulette about death and burial. He helps her bury the dead dog in a makeshift cemetery. They start burying all kinds of other animals they find, in order so that the dog is not lonely. Being a good Catholic boy, Michel knows that the graves need crosses, so he steals some from the local human cemetery. This causes much dismay in Michel's household. Eventually, Paulette is sent to the Red Cross.
This is a touching film. I think the girl reminded me of my daughter, so it held me quite intensely. This film makes some interesting statements regarding loss, and our methods of dealing with it. The family who takes in Paulette has a son that eventually dies from wounds he received being kicked by a horse. The family is a strong Catholic family, though Michel is the only one who knows his prayers and Catechisms. As the brother dies, the family asks Michel to say some prayers. He does, but he mixes several prayers together, and eventually speaks nonsense. The family doesn't notice, and are content with the fact he is saying any prayer. They soon forget about the loss and focus on the petty dispute they have with their neighbors. They blame everything that goes on, including the missing crosses, on them. At the funeral, both families each try to outdo each other in decorating the graves of their loved ones. Eventually, the two fathers get into a fight and fall into an open grave. Meanwhile, the kids are busy saying prayers and placing crosses over the graves of their animal friends. For much of the film Paulette forgets about her parents. Only at the end, when she is at the Red Cross and sees a man and woman that reminds her of them, does she remember that they are gone. She cries out for her parents and disappears into the crowd looking for them.
Religion in this film is a child's game, something that innocent children look to rather than looking at their loss. The kids are severely reprimanded for stealing the crosses for their pet cemetery. Yet, it is equally silly for the adults to have them in the human cemetery. The adults in the film are also determined to distract themselves. They focus on this silly squabble so they don't have to focus on the war and the loss of their brother. No one in the film faces reality. Yet reality is there, and reality is full of hardship and turmoil. The only thing that doesn't seem to be in the film is God. If He was there wouldn't He stop all the pain and suffering? If He was there wouldn't He do more than provide some temporary balm for the wounds of war? I may be reading too much into the film. However, I know that many people think these things about pain. They see pain as evidence that God doesn't exist. Of course, in doing so, they assume to know how an omniscient deity would act. "If God was good, why would He allow suffering?" What makes the person who says that so sure that they know what is good and what is evil? Who are they to decide that good means life without suffering? Even the famous atheist Nietzsche said, "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger." Most will agree that good can come from suffering. So what makes them say that suffering is evil, and a good god wouldn't allow it? I find that the existence of pain and suffering to be one of the most profound moral arguments for a God. One of the greatest gifts a good God could give us is a free will, the ability to reject Him. If this God is all-powerful, and the end of all things, wouldn't it be good for us to follow Him, and bad for us to reject Him? Would a good God allow us to make wrong decisions without consequence? Would God be truly seeking our benefit if He let us do whatever we wanted with any type of punishment? From what I can see, man will do more out of fear of punishment than out of hope of reward. Most will allow that suffering results from man's evil. Is it possible to have suffering without evil, and vice versa?
Also, if God doesn't exist, then what do we do with suffering? We have no hope. We have not possible easement. Suffering and pain and loss will always be there, and there is nothing we can do about it. If this is the case, why wouldn't you chose something to distract you? Anything that relieves the burden, no matter how silly or preposterous, would be better than suffering, better than facing the reality of this dreadful world. Why should we look with disdain at those who found a way to endure this dreary life? I cannot see what an atheist hopes to attain. I cannot see how they can get any joy out of life. It what they say is true, what point is there to anything?