what a cold hearted b itch! abandon your family, disappear for 2 years, and then come back and say "ok im ready to be a mother again", and then get away with it too?! god, i just wanted to kill her!! poor dustin hoffman... lost his wife, lost his job, then the icing on the cake, lost his custody battle, and almost lost his kid... what a depressing movie this was... great movie, but depressing...
shareWe were supposed to believe that Hoffman smothered her completely, nearly choking the life out of her, forcing her to leave or die. It is a stretch then to accept that she's all better in 18 months. But the onus was on him.
What say there, Fussy Britches? Feel like talking?
No, you weren't the only one.
sharewhat a cold hearted b itch! abandon your family, disappear for 2 years, and then come back and say "ok im ready to be a mother again",
[deleted]
thats crap you do not leave your kid for any reason so dont comment till youve got kids!! and as for him been forced into doing it he did do it and i think he did a good job but lets remember its just a film
lifes whats happening while we are busy making plans
The only difference b/w Hoffman and his wife was that she didn't physically live at home when she was gone. That's all. NEITHER character was strictly "hero" or "villain".
btw, I have a 3 year old, so try not to run your mouth until you know what the hell you're talking about, k?
...but it must be good. Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up...
sorry about running my mouth off but she is still wrong for leaving her child who would do it????i would not leave my kid !!!!and ok yes he neglected his kid in the begining but he was working for them but he was there when he was needed when she went and left them!!!!!and ok its just a film but similar things happen like that in real life and who on here could leave there kid ????and for what reason?????
lifes whats happening while we are busy making plans
So, just b/c you wouldn't do it means no one should do it? (only one "?" neccesary, btw). There was no difference b/w what the dad did or the mom, besides the fact that the dad came home at night (more than likely long after the child went to bed).
...but it must be good. Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up...
but he did come home she just left !!!!and as i said before would you leave your kid????
lifes whats happening while we are busy making plans
Probably not, but you should remember that, even though it wasn't THAT long ago, there were still people in that time that felt that the "man" should work and the "woman" should stay at home making/raising babies. When she first leaves, she says "I'm no good for him (her son)". In her mind, she thought that she was doign the best thing for her son. After seeing cases like the Yates trial and that recent one where the wife shot her preacher husband, I can see why she left. It wasn't a perfect decision, but in her own mind she made the right decision. She would have left anyway, it was best that she let her son stay in his own natural environment w/out too much changes, since he was already going to have to deal with a divorce in the family, which can be SO traumatizing.
Of course, whether you agree with her actions or not, you have to admit that Streep acted the part eprfectly, and completely earned her OScar.
...but it must be good. Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up...
oh yes meryl is great what other films do you like shiza
lifes whats happening while we are busy making plans
Well, I consider KvK my favorite movie of all time (odd, since I never had to deal with anyting that happened in this movie), but I usually like well-done horror/thrillers or crime/serial killer type movies (Silence of Lambs is a close 2nd to KvK). I also always seem to enjoy movies that would technically be considered "bad", like American Pie type comedies (fart jokes still make me laugh :) or Showgirls. I also like Dramas, but the list of the ones I like is very small b/c a lot of them move SO slowly, and sometimes it seems like it's solely to stretch the movie time (like In The BEdroom). Basically, I can enjoy any type of movie as long as I think it's good (specific answer, huh ;)
...but it must be good. Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up...
i also like horror films and i do like silence i like most films but i hate star wars and star trek!!!! sorry if you are a trekkie!!!!! i like beaches too
lifes whats happening while we are busy making plans
I ATTEMPTED an episode of Trek when I was younger. 10 minutes in I wanted to strangle myself to death. I want those 10 minutes back. Star Wars was mildly interesting to me, but I couldn't watch it over and over like some people. Beaches is just a guilty pleasure for me ;)
...but it must be good. Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up...
[deleted]
I think you need to take a chill pill. It's just a movie and she's only an actor.
shareThat's such bull. If she wanted to get away from the dad without removing her son from his place, she could have moved down the street. She didn't have to run off to California and *completely* abandon him! How could anyone believe that running off without a word and leaving her son to feel like he's been abandoned is in his best interest? Do you know what kind of emotional baggage that creates? The lady is either utterly selfish or mentally unstable- either way, not fit to be a mom. And then to show up 2 years later, ready to rip her son away from the happy relationship he now has with his father and create a huge custody battle stink, because she's now decided she wants to be a mom again...wait, I thought she didn't want to disrupt her son's life- that was her justification for abandoning him the first place, right? If she wants to be in his life again, why not move back to New York, where she can share custody with the dad, allow her son to have his father in his life, and not create hell for everyone? The character is not thinking of anyone's interest but her own. Meryl Streep is great, but her character in this film is exasperating.
shareNo she was very selfish!! All she thought about was Joanna. She was so miserable, well she should have thought about that before she got married. He worked all the time to take care of his family, and he never failed to provide for her and Billy. He needed his mom and that would be a terrible thing for a CHILD TO GO THROUGH!!!!
shareWhat a hot head. Parents can get so arrogant over other people's opinions when someone doesn't agree with the all mighty know it all because she/has a kid. What really pisses me off is how they one minute act like ShizaMinelli here, like we with no kids have no right to speak, but when they have something to whine about, suddenly we no kid nobodies are ALLOWED to have an opinion as long as we agree with them.
shareNo, thats NOT the only difference - did you watch the damn movie with you ears open ?? She did not tuck him in every night and tell him she loved him. He saw his dad every night ! Major difference ! And I don't care what her inner freakin struggle was,if you LOVE your kid you can NEVER not see them every freakin' day (possible)!
So you have a 3 year old - whats that matter ? I'd bet most, if not all on this thread have kids - why the emotions are running so high. I'd never want to 'choke/kill' her because that would take her away permanently but I gotta say when dad was reading her pathetic letter to the boy I had to get up and take a walk ! And I saw this film when it first came out - years before my first born. Watching it again tonight almost made me vomit it was so gut wrenching.
This movie was made during the period when woman were made to feel 'guilty' about the most important job in the world - raising their children ! Running off, having an affair/'seeing someone', not talking to her kid for almost 2 years... 'but I watched him from across the street' Arghhhhhh !! BS !!
But in the late 70's this movie reflected exactly what was happening in marriages. Women were being encouraged to 'fulfill themselves' above all. "You can be a CEO, go to strip clubs, act like men too !'. What ? Like the lowest of low life men ?? There was a full frontal assault on motherhood/marriage back then - 'career not bare foot and pregnant' (what demeaning BS) was the call.
Self centered, narcissism. You choose to get married, you chose to bring a child into the world - take care of your responsibilities ! 'He works late and doesn't pay attention to me'. Yeah, would you have settled for a 9 to 5 10k a year dude to marry Ms Kramer ? Hell no. The guy is up to his a** in work trying to bring home the bacon (men didn't/don't have 'choices' - we know from 5 yrs old who is to make the $ and we just deal with it) ... what was he to do ? Quit ?? he had no idea what the hell was going on because she never told him until the moment she was walking out the door. Is the kid going to have daddy now every night while the 2 are separated ? At least he saw the child every night when they were together. If he was an addict, abuser etc., then yes, she needed to get out, at least temp., but if he was sooo bad, take the boy too. This should have been a 'mental health' angle - she had something more wrong with her than 'not being fulfilled'. Really, what parent could leave, for almost 2 years,their kid like that - unless she was mentally ill. Don't respond with 'you don't understand, she was talking about jumping out the window - she was mentally ill !". No, she was a self centered, un-carrying, unfeeling witch period. The point of this movie, partially at least, was to show the struggle women were going through and the 'sacrifices' they had to make to become 'fulfilled'. Guess what ? Life ain't a bed of roses .... many people aren't thrilled by their damn jobs either - guys drop dead prematurely all the time from the stress of working dead end jobs dealing with BS. But they do it (the decent ones that is) because they know they have to support their family.
Nice that woman have a choice these days. But make responsible choices. Wanna a career and kids ?? Somethings going to suffer. How much time will/would she have for her boy chasing her damn career ?? I could freakin spit right now !
I never understood the court's ruling in this movie. It showed she was emotionally fragile after 7 years of marriage, 5 years raising a son, that she threatened to jump out the window. So WHY was she qualified, then, to raise the child herself? If raising a child with all of that spare time was stressful, try raising a child while working a full-time job. Ted showed he was able to do it, and when faced with saving his job or providing for his son (the story about the 104 temperature), he chose his son over his job and handled finding a new job with compete aplomb. He didn't dump his child at his parents house and then ran off to California to "decompress". I couldn't blame him if he wanted to or even tried, but he didn't, showing himself to be a completely responsible parent, unlike Joanna.
And if she was unhappy with the marriage, then she should have asked for a divorce, stayed in New York City, regularly visited her son, found a job, and THEN I could see an argument for her earning custody of her child. But she showed herself incapable of putting her child's needs over her own needs ("finding herself" blah blah, why couldn't she do that in New York), so how does that make her qualify for custody?
The one part that showed me that Streep's character was devoid of any good was when she was on the witness stand and Ted's attorney was trying to get her to admit that she was a bad wife and mother. And Dustin Hoffman shakes his head "no". Despite this gesture, she says yes anyway, as if only to disagree with Ted on every subject.
shareOH, lord, she didn't do it to disagree with him at every chance, she honestly felt that way and had been berated into it by the lawyer.
I shimmer, ELECTRIC, I'm a one-man-marching brownie band
You were NOT THE ONLY ONE. I understand that her husband was stifling her, but jeez, way to mess up your kid's life! I am a recipient of one parent abandoning my family and it is selfish and terrible.
shareIt's interesting how different people on this post treat these characters so differently. This film is famous for "not taking sides," i.e. it doesn't condemn either the mother or the father for the actions they take or fail to take. While audiences are free to react however they please (and the most obvious reaction is to condemn the mother), the film makes it hard for them. That's a sign of it being a good movie.
shareYes, I wanted to choke Meryl's character Joanna throughout. Parenthood is a tremendous commitment and should never be embarked upon without careful consideration of the long term responsibilities involved. All else must be of secondary priority to these parental duties. It's deplorable that her husband was a workaholic who neglected his wife and son. That would normally elicit sympathy from me for Joanna.
However, this in no way justifies Joanna's self absorbed decision to essentially abandon her young son to go off, *find herself*, and seek her own personal self fulfillment. She should have sought out some means for her fulfillment within the context of her PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY which was to be a CONSISTENT, PRESENT, loving, and nurturing mother. If she could not do this within the context of her maternal role, she should have made due without. Joanna's young son needs his mother. Period.
The fact that Ted initially doesn't have his own priorities straight does NOT justify Joanna's behaviour, though Ted could certainly have used a good dressing down himself. Partially, Joanna leaves to spite Ted and force him to adopt more of his paternal responsibilities. She is definitely NOT thinking of her son's interests.
Joanna's behaviour is horrendously selfish, woefully neglectful, and totally inexcusable. Ted deserves full custody, as I see it. Others may disagree, but I feel that she relinquished her rights when she abandoned her son as she did. Her later returning with a "Now I'm ready to be a mother again" attitude failed to cut it with me. Parenthood doesn't provide for sabbatical leave. I would say the same about Ted, if the situation had been reversed. It's no more acceptable for a father to walk out on his child than it is for a mother.
[deleted]
oh!!! so you would choke her because she left her kid, cos' she couldn't take it anymore?
i bet a lot of you who want to choke Meryl's character are men. you guys are so selfish. you think women only need money. you're not buying anybody's life, you know when you marry them. people have emotions. even animals have emotions. the lock of emotion could drive you insane.
People marry basically because they love each other. of course financial opportunities are always important, but they are not the basics of a marriage; love is. her husband as some of you said works his ass off and makes some money and brings it home. so he thinks that would make his wife happy? he doesn't have to make love to her, or ask her how she is ,or listen to her if she needs anything than money. no, of course not, right guys? he brings her money. it's enough. what kind of crap is that? So in other words, the "only" thing she wants is money, doesn't it? People make commitments to each other that they will "LOVE" each other no matter what when they marry. Joanna was so friggin' unhappy. she was no mother, no wife. she was a babysitter basically. you want her to live in hell without emotional needs. this is pure crap. of course a mother should be by her kid's side all the time, but Joanna knew Ted. she knew Ted would take care of him. that's why she took a risk and left. if Ted was a friggin' alcoholic maniac, she wouldn't. she also believed that she was not a good mother. she had no patience and she thought if she took him with her, it'd be worse for him. she was always thinking the best for him too. maybe she had a weird and uncommon way of showing it, but it doesn't mean her feelings for her son don't exist. if she doesn't get enough emotional support from her husband, how can she give more to her son when on the other side her need for love is fading. what is she, a robot? she'll always give, what is she gonna get? maybe in some degree the love for your kid and the love for your spouse come from two different parts of your heart, but when one part is bleeding to death, other part has to pay the price sometimes.how could you possibly not see this?
People need to be loved, too, you know.
[deleted]
bernardo, i was repyling to the original poster. Not to you. :))
and roghache, could you do it without any support from your husband? i don't think you could as WELL as you did or continue doing.
of course there are mothers who either lost their husbands or married neglectful ones. for the ones who lost their husbands, the situation is easy a bit.how? Because they know they have NO other option, but to raise this child. all they have is the love for their kid. they embrace this love and make a strong bond. Their dead husbands whom were either loved or hated are history somehow. So there is only one room in their heart; love for their kid. on the other hand, there is this other group - Joanna is in this one-their husbands are alive, but living dead. For this group, it's much much worse. because they do know their husbands are alive, but they get no such emotional support from them whatsoever. maybe if they were dead, it'd be much more appreciated. and they have two rooms in their heart. one is full of love for their kid, but the other one is almost empty. so it's much harder to bear, you know.
Streeptacular, I can see all your points and Ted also deserved a choking early on in the movie. I should make it clear that I am NOT a man, but a married woman who has raised a child - fortunately with the help of a great husband who's also a wonderful father.
share