Why Hoffman's character doesn't hire someone to help out, or bring one of the grandmothers or someone to stay for a while makes no sense. I doubt a man who makes a lot of money would have tried to do everything himself and end up putting his job in jeopardy because he has to pick up his kid at school.
shareTwo things to consider...
1) The movie makes a point to have Ted say to his boss (early on) that he's a "survivor". The character of Ted is presented as the kind of strong willed man that never takes the easy way out. There are definitely people like this in the world, so it's not impossible to think that he would not take the easy way out and let stranger or relative raise his son for him. Ted's boss actually suggests that he let his relatives take in his son, and Ted's reply tells you all you need to know.
2) The point of this movie is that some men/fathers actually LOVE their children more than they love themselves or their job. Ted is one of these men, and the biggest reason that I love this movie. He sees the damage his wife has done by abandoning her child and he will not allow his boy to feel abandoned by the only parent he has left, even if it costs him his job or his social life. He is a selfless parent and I love his character.
This was absolutely NOT a case of the film maker writing it this way because there wouldn't be a movie without it or a case of it being a unintended plot hole... Ted deciding to do right by his son IS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE.
It's just a shame there are people/parents out there that don't understand that.
Your post here implies that men -- OR WOMEN (or couples) -- who hire housekeepers or nannies, or who use day care, are "losers" who don't care for the children. That is absurd.
As many people have pointed out in other threads, the movie differs sharply from the book -- mostly to make the characters more sympathetic and turn on the tears. I remember seeing this film in theatres when I was only 23. Boy, growing up and having a family has DRASTICALLY changed how I interpret the material.
I also read the book at some point (though it was years ago). The book is more staged to make Joanna out to be a "bee-yotch" and to imply she left over feminist ideals. As others have noted, there is a kindly older housekeeper in the novel, and Ted is not trying to be "superman".
It is also written and set in the early 70s, which was a very different era than today. Today a housekeeper or nanny in an affluent NYC home, would almost certainly be an illegal alien from Mexico or Central America -- not a kindly old white lady.
It is perfectly reasonable IMHO for a busy professional -- whose job entails working very long hours -- to have a combination of day care and a housekeeper, or even a full-time nanny.
BTW: the story is set around 1977 or 1978 (in the film; earlier in the book). Wages have gone up a LOT more than 300% in that time -- try more like 6-7 times. If Ted made $33,000 in 1978, then his salary in 2013 would have to be around $200K or even more. He was lead account executive at a huge agency (think: Mad Men). In fact, that may be understating it. In Mad Men, Don Draper (at the very beginning of the series) is earning $25,000 a year -- in 1960! In 2013 dollars, that is around $250K-$300K.
The reason Ted Kramer doesn't hire a nanny is that one of the main subplots in this film is, precisely, the bonding that takes place between him and his son Billy when he is forced to take care of him around the clock. Bringing in a nanny or a relative would have interfered with what the writer/director wanted us to see.
shareRemember that he is a stubborn guy as well. The boss told him to be careful about handling his time, and Kramer was re-assuring that he could do it, he is a workaholic.
Plus the school seemed to do most of the Nanny work, maybe he found it easier to 'wake up, take son to school, pick up after work' than hire another person to add to the workload.
I don't think so knoxfan. Hiring someone to take his son to/from school and care for him would have saved him time. His work suffered because he had to dedicate too much time to take care of his son himself as you pointed out by his boss' remark. It's all about the bonding between father and son because of the extra time they spend together.
shareYeh, i agree and exactly that's the point of the film. But i think the film established a character that is believable when he doesn't hire a nanny. It doesn't really take away from the film because it is within reason why he wouldn't. Yeh it would have saved him time, but him not hiring a nanny seems reasonable and within Hoffman's character.
share[deleted]
Sure, it would "make sense" for him to hire domestic help. True that. But think about it. In so many horror or suspense films what would make sense would be to dial 911 in the first ten minutes of the first act. But then you'd have driven across town, parked in Siberia, bought tickets, only to find that what you thought was going to be a feature film was only fifteen minutes long. Not cool.
shareIf Ted was making $100K a year in today's dollars, that's more regular middle-class than upper. Especially in New York City. I know drillers and oil riggers making even more than $100K a year in low-cost areas that are dumber than a box of rocks and have nothing to show for their earnings.
I think Ted could have afforded part-time help or after-school baby sitter to charge by the hour, but of course he was too stubborn to have done so.
If Ted was making $100K a year in today's dollars, that's more regular middle-class than upper.Yes, he's middle class, not upper middle class as claimed.
Good grief! NO! $100K a year is NOT "middle class".
The average US family (FAMILY -- not individual) income is $48,500 as I type this in 2015. That's down from a high of about $52,000 in 2008.
So $100K would be double that. That's not middle class. It's upper middle.
Furthermore, whoever assumed that $33K in 1978 was the same as $100K is deluded. The cost of living has gone up far more than 3 times -- more like 6-7 times. Meaning it is more like $200K than $100K.
In 2015, $200K in income would be the TOP 4% of all incomes in the US. That means it is more than 96% of all Americans. That is actually rich, not even upper middle class.
I agree it goes less far in New York City than in (say) Dayton, Ohio -- but that is not how we figure income or class.
A single parent (then or now) with a demanding job would hire a nanny or housekeeper, even if it took 50% or more of their takehome pay -- because they'd want to keep their job. In fact, in the NOVEL, Ted Kramer does have a live-in housekeeper. The film eliminated her, to make Ted a more sympathetic character.
[deleted]