Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Philomena: Victims and Villains

Spoiler Alert: I include details about the film Philomena. 
I just saw the Oscar-nominated film Philomena, the story of an Irish woman’s search for the son she had in 1952 as an unmarried teen. Disowned and abandoned by her family when her aunt realized Philomena was pregnant, she gave birth in Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea. In exchange for being taken in, Philomena was forced to sign adoption papers and to be an indentured servant in the Abbey for four years to pay off her debt. For three of those years, she saw her son every day in the children’s rooms at the Abbey. One day, without any opportunity for her to say goodbye, a man and a woman arrived and took her son.
For fifty years, the nuns of Sean Ross Abbey thwarted Philomena’s repeated efforts to find her son.  With the help of a journalist, Philomena eventually located him. Adopted by Americans, he grew up to become the chief legal counsel for the Republican National Committee during the senior Bush administration. He died from AIDS before Philomena learned who he was. Judi Dench is outstanding as Philomena as is Steve Coogan as Martin Sixsmith, the journalist who took on this “human interest” story when he was retooling himself after losing his job in the Blair administration.
The major villains in the film are the nuns of Sean Ross Abbey in Roscrea. Most of them display little compassion for the children or for the mothers as teens or adults. Martin heard local gossip that the Abbey enriched its coffers by selling the children to wealthy Americans. This gossip provided an avenue of investigation for Philomena and Martin. When confronted about the obstacles the Abbey erected, an elderly nun passionately justified the cruelty toward the teen mothers, the forced adoptions, and the refusal to aid mothers and children in reuniting as the girls’ penance for their wanton expression of sexuality. 
If only the victimization of unwed teen mothers and their children was limited to Ireland, nuns, and the 1950s. By the time I was 15, I somehow already “knew” that getting pregnant was the ruin of a girl’s reputation along with her dreams.  That was the in US, in a predominately Protestant community, and in the early 1960s. I had heard whispers of “shotgun weddings” and of pregnant girls who were sent away to have babies and then forced to give them up for adoption.  According to the National Vital Statistics Report, prior to 1973, 20% of US babies born to unmarried white women were put up for adoption (less than 3 % by the mid-1980s).  Ann Fessler (2006) in The Girls Who Went Away documents the experiences of unmarried white girls encouraged to give away their babies and who social workers told they would forget. Like Philomena, none of the girls ever forgot.
As portrayed in the film, the sisters of Sean Ross Abbey were responsible for the forced adoptions, indentured servitude, and thwarting the efforts of mothers and children to find each other.  But, there is no way that the nuns were solely responsible for the hardships the girls and their children faced.  The lack of power invested in nuns and the scrutiny of their behavior means that the church hierarchy was complicit. Philomena’s family disowned her and abandoned her at the Abbey. I am certain that a driving force was the family’s fear of local gossip. I grew up in a small town where any stepping outside of the “lines” was fair game for gossip and teasing for decades after, so the threat of gossip kept many people secretive, silent, and conforming.  How ironic that girls who had taken no vows of chastity were held to higher standards of sexual conduct than priests who abused young people in their charge.
The possibility of being targets of gossip probably also affected those who adopted children. In the 1950s in the US, there was enormous pressure for adults to be “normal”--heterosexual, coupled, and parents.  I am not surprised that wealthy American heterosexual couples who were infertile would turn to adoption within and outside the US.  Surely also accountable were medical and scientific institutions for failing to develop safe and effective contraceptives and religious and governmental prohibitions against contraception and abortion.  
No institution—family, schools, or religion--provided effective sex education, resulting in many girls (e.g. Philomena) having no idea how sex and pregnancy were linked and denying them the opportunity to make informed choices about sex or pregnancy. More common was vague information about the relationship between sex and pregnancy that was incomprehensible to anyone who did not already have some understanding of the relationship. For instance, I recall my mother telling me: “Never let a boy touch you.” The “movie” that ran in my mind was being caught on the barbed wired fence at my Aunt Mary and Uncle Leslie’s farm,  having to decline help from a neighbor’s son, and waiting helplessly for someone other than a boy to come by to help extract me from the barbed-wire.
Philomena is a powerful story of the ways that institutions shape individuals’ lives and simultaneously portrays ways that individuals resist mistreatment and push for a say in their own lives.  Philomena expressed no regrets for the pleasures of her first sexual experience and chose to focus on love, not hate. Philomena reminded me of all who experience restrictive and unforgiving ideas about gender and sexuality—a commonality across decades between unwed teen Philomena and her in-the-closet son and shared with millions of people today.  The film also reminded me of the problem with pointing fingers—even if pointed in the right direction, our fingers are too short to reach the depths of responsibility and too few to identify all the culprits.


References

Fessler, Ann. 2007. The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade. NY: Penguin.


Ventura, Stephanie J. and Christine A. Bachrach. 2000. Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-99. National Vital Statistics Reports 48 (16): 1-40.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Can a Flawed Fictional Relationship Enhance a Real Relationship

I saw Five-Year Engagement last night. We recently saw Emily Blunt in Salmon Fishing in the Yemen and were re-watching Freaks and Geeks with Jason Segel, so it seemed like a good choice for a rainy Sunday evening. Spoiler alert in the rest of the blog.

Premise
The premise is that Violet (Emily Blunt) and Tom (Jason Segel) keep postponing their marriage because of one thing after another, but they end up getting married after a five-year engagement.

Synopsis
Violet and Tom meet on New Year’s Eve and one year later are engaged. Violet aspires to be a college professor and Jason a chef. Jason is a sou-chef at a San Francisco restaurant when Violet is offered a two year post-doc at University of Michigan. He says he will follow her. He turns down a head-chef position at a new restaurant in San Francisco and takes a job at a local deli in Ann Arbor. Tom is unhappy, but assumes it is only a 2 year stint. Then Violet gets an extension on her postdoc with a potential assistant professorship down the road. Along with indiscretions with other people, their relationship becomes strained and Tom returns to San Francisco and Violet stays in Michigan. They eventually get back together to the delight of family and friends and finally get married.

Too Long
As we left the theater, I was certain the movie was 2 ½ hours long and that about an hour could have been cut. I was surprised to find out later that it was only 2 hours long! I think it felt so long because it was so wrong.


So Wrong
There were so many things wrong with how the movie portrayed two-career couples, academics, and science. For instance,

• Violet applies for a postdoc in another part of the country without discussing it in advance with Tom.
In past decades men made career plans without discussing them with their families who were then expected to adapt their plans, but a two-career couple in 2012? Violet and Tom had aspirations, but apparently never discussed the particulars with each other. Violet applied for a post-doc at the University of Michigan without discussing what it would mean for her, for Tom, and for their relationship. She waited to bring it up with him after she got the post-doc. Two-career couples talk about their career paths in advance and work together to lay the groundwork for both to have successful careers.

• Violet receives notice of her postdoc via snail mail in a large envelope with the University of Michigan logo. No phone interview? No on-campus interview? No email exchange? Nothing until the acceptance letter shows up? In 2012, email and other electronic communications are commonly used for communicating with people about a position and alerting people to academic awards. It is highly unlikely that anyone, anywhere gets a postdoc without screening, conversation, and email exchanges.

• In another scene, Violet stands patiently while her supervising professor reads an article (at least 25 pages) she had written! What academic has the time to stand while someone else is reading your work? Who has the time to read an entire article while the author waits for your remarks? This is NOT how effective academics seek or receive feedback. Drafts are sent in email attachments. Unless you are part of a face-to-face writing group, then most likely a person receives feedback via email. Even if a person dropped off a hard copy draft (in 2012?), an effective academic would not stand around while someone else read their draft.

• Without any agreed upon procedures or practice, Violet improvises her instructions to the subjects of the experiment. Further, she states the results of her research in absolutes and makes broad generalizations. Given that the principal investigator and his three doctoral students (including Violet) are all present to observe an experiment, it is hard to believe that they would (1) expend all these people resources by all being present and (2) would wait until the last minute to decide who is going to introduce the experiment to the subjects and not have an agreed-upon script. When Violet mentions the results, she states absolutes without qualifications or nuance. Her absolute statements about her data become one of the reasons she steps back from her relationship with Tom. So not only does she speak in absolutes, but also incorrectly generalizes from a group response to Tom. In experimental research, procedures are carefully planned and results are stated in relative terms; procedures are not developed haphazardly or spontaneously.

If you want to see the film, I recommend renting it so you can watch a scene, stop the DVD, and then discuss relationship issues raised by the scene. For instance,

1. When Violet tells Tom that she was turned down for a post-doc position at Berkeley, have a discussion about your dreams. Discuss what will help you reach them? What changes might this entail in your relationship? How you could you support each other in attaining your dreams?

2. When Violet learns that she has been offered a post-doc at University of Michigan and waits for Tom to come home to break the news to him, discuss how you prefer to get difficult news. Discuss strategies for how to problem-solve together if either of you were to get difficult news that would deeply affect your relationship.

3. When Violet stands patiently waiting for her supervising professor to read her paper, ask each other about ways that you waste time that is not productive, energizing, or rewarding (like standing around waiting for someone to finish reading something)? If there are those things in your lives, then discuss whether or not there are ways to eliminate those energy drainers. If they can’t be eliminated, then discuss how you could experience that time in a positive, energizing way.

Just some thoughts about how to make a flawed fictional relationship work to enhance a real relationship. Another option is to skip the film altogether and just talk.