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...
share[deleted]
I think it's hard to sympathize with Joanna's character because we see her leaving the family from her first scene. If the film had built up years of emotional detachment and misery, we may have seen her side of things more. But, it's more interesting in a narrative to start in the middle of things, and for the film, the interesting part of the story was Ted's growing relationship with his son AFTER she had already left.
And as the lawyer tried to prove with this line of questioning:
Did your husband ever abuse you? Did he ever abuse your son? Would you consider him an alcoholic? Was there ever any infidelity? Did your husband ever fail to provide for you?
Obviously the answer to all these questions was no - and so it would be hard for the audience to see her reason for leaving them. I do think her courtroom speech helps to win her some understanding in the film, but most people seem to see her actions as very selfish. I agree - when you have children you have to give up a lot of your self to be there for them - but of course, not every parent does. That's part of why this film was believable.
lol...wen I saw ur post, I laughed, but she's such a good actress that yes I hated her character in the movie, I like her in real life though.
shareI think what you wrote here is a little rough, but I do think you have a very good point. But I also think ShizaMannelli has a good point as well. She, and their son, had been somewhat neglected by Ted Kramer all those years, and I do know he was working at a demanding, time consuming marketing job in Manhatten. But he still could have been a more attentive, loving father and husband (plenty of even busier career poeple are). And I do fully understand why Joanne Kramer did want to change her life then, and get out and get a career/name for herself. However, I do think she was wrong to just leave as she did (remember, that was putting their son at risk more than anything). And that caused Ted to lose his job (though I think that man was very wrong to fire him for that, as he could have been more understanding as well to a great, longtime employee that suddenly had to deal with something so huge on him!). But I think she and Ted could have gone over this, and she explained she did need to do this, but still wanted to be there as the boy's mother, and they could have hired a babysitter or the like. And they could have shared custody of him while at their different jobs. and after she did establish herself (as happened in this movie), they could have continued to share custody. So I think Ted was wrong to neglect them as he did, Joanne was wrong to just dump their son in his lap and leave as she did for months, and then suddenly reappear and want him completely again. I do understand fully why she wanted to do what she did, I just think she could have done it differently, and everything would have been alot better for all three of them.
"I happen to be a vegetarian". Lex, from Jurrasic Park
Ted was not the best father he could have been. But take into account, he was there. He was working at a high pressure marketing job trying to get ahead for his family. He was trying to bring in the money, he was trying to be there for his family. In his hurry to do everything he could for them, he lost sight of some of what they needed, him to be there, emotional connection. But he was trying to do his best. His son clearly loved him. He didn't know that much about his kid but he was there, he did talk to him, he did love him.
Joanna had a problem, she didn't feel there for her son. As she said, she had been the dominant figure in his life for the first 5 years of his life. Of course by the time you're 7 you don't remember much of the first 3. So he probably remembered about equal time with both parents. But she had been there during his early years. Because of his lack of connection with his father, did she ever think what losing the dominant figure in his life could do to him? She didn't have to go to California. There are shrinks in New York. She no longer loved her husband, that's fine, being in an unloving marriage is a bad thing. But she could have stayed in the city. She could have stayed nearby. Still been a part of her son's life. Been what he needed at least to some degree, lessen the shock. No, she took off entirely for herself. You lose that luxury when you're a parent.
For Joanna/Ted, parenting had been a system they had worked out, as most married couples do. It's an unspoken arrangement that most couples have that is usually unequal. Joanna got the worse end obviously. But they were both living their lives for their child, for their family. Joanna stopped. Ted never did. Joanna one day said, I'm going to quit my part of the arrangement and give it all to Ted. Suddenly Ted has to keep all of his responsibility and also take on all of what had been Joanna's. There was a bit of a transition and some problems early on but he rose to the occaision with flying colors.
She comes back and wants her son back and suddenly she gets it? She abandoned him, Ted never did.
Last Films Seen (first viewing):
Ghost Rider: 3/10
Tyler Perry's Daddy's Little Girls: 5/10
No I didn't feel this way at all. Of course I was sorry for Billy. And I was alternately sorry for Joanna and then for Ted. But we come into the film mid-marriage, when she leaves, and we never get to see WHY she left. The film stacks the odds that you will sympathize with Ted right at the start.
For the film to work--to get you to care about Ted at all--you have to not "get" why she left. You have to be on his side the whole way thru. So the marriage part is never given to us to see. Ted pretends not to see it, too, at first.
Then, it gradually dawns on him that a) there is more to this "mom" stuff than he ever understood before, b) Joanna was begging for his attention and help before--and he had deliberately put his needs first, not hers, c) that strategy made him both a bad husband and a bad parent, too and d) a child needs both parents, and they need to both do more than just bring home the bacon.
You can see that Joanna is nearly out of her mind with anxiety and boredom and anger and fear when she leaves that night. She was so afraid she'd kill herself to escape an unhappy marriage, that she said to Ted--"If I go back in there, a year from now, I'll go right out that window."
Ted only cared about himself and his own career before; he seemed to see Billy and Joanna as extensions of himself, in the background, not part of his everyday life at all. I think he saw Billy as "Joanna's problem" before. He barely knew his wife and son, their needs or their moods, and their daily activities were hi-lites at dinner, if that, until she left. Then, in 18 months, suddenly all that is changed, and now he's the perfect parent. Even though she had done all that and more for Billy and him for the last 5 years before he ever noticed her doing it, right?
But she wrote, and she sent money. Notice the wall next to Billy's bed, full of pictures and cards from her. She got a job, started to earn money, so that she would be able to come back and care for Billy. Ted was right, Billy was lucky that TWO parents wanted him so much.
Many, many fathers abandon the family, take off and start over, leaving the family abruptly; then gradually, they re-enter their child's life and everyone thinks it only right that they be allowed to hang around again. No different to me, than what Joanna did here. I don't distinguish between male and female here.
My parents divorced the same year the movie came out after a 2 year separation, but I was older than Billy, Thank God!
The only difference is, fathers in those days were usually perfectly willing to disappear, and they didn't usually show back up to beg for full custody, as Joanna did. Heck, they neither wanted it just after the divorce, nor got it. But no one thought they were cold hearted or wrong or didn't deserve to have their children back in their life at all.
It was just they way things were.
This movie showed something drastically different for those times. Different even for today, I'd bet, in most cases. Many men share custody today, unlike then, but it is still very rare for them to want, fight for and and then to actually take full custody. And yet most people you ask would say, well, he can't, can he? He has to earn a living, he has to work late, to travel, how can he do that if he is single and has the child fulltime?
Joanna had gone to Smith. An Ivy league college. Today she'd work, too, and they'd have had a nanny and even she wouldn't be home with Billy enough of the time for it to worry her. If they both made $31,000, like she did at the end, they'd have been rich for those days.
The courtroom scene showed Ted that he had to value Joanna and all women more highly (she makes more than he does and has a real job, a real life, without him, something he never expected her to be able to do) but it also showed Joanna that just because she can have the boy, she shouldn't take him if it isn't right for everyone concerned, most of all for Billy. She can be a good mother by giving him up, rather than fighting to keep him.
Let's admit it---when a mother gives up custody even today, people label her as selfish or defective. But dads do this all the time, simply by being willing to accept only weekends and holidays (and sometimes not even that much time).
I bet if in real life this played out, she'd agree to this for a while, then a few years later, just like all those dads used to do, she'd start wanting more time with Billy---and then get it. And if Ted's career took off again, he'd probably be willing to let him go to her then.
And, if Billy had been a 2 year old and not a 6 year old, I can bet Ted would have been happy to see him go to her right at the start and would not have fought her for him. Too hard, whereas a 6 year old like Billy is potty trained, feeds himself, reads, etc, without too much hovering.
[deleted]
I found her intensely irritating. But aside from the fact that she was clearly a role-reversal character, I didn't think she made any more sense than Demi Moore's character in "Disclosure". She was mainly there to show that women could be the bad guys in a divorce, too, not as a realistic portrayal of a woman fighting for custody of her child.
We're supposed to believe, for example, that a woman who spent seven years at home taking care of a child could leave and within two years have a nicer job than her husband. In 1979?! With what kind of job skills? But this has to occur because she's actually a reversal of a man in that situation. Only a couple of decades before this film came out, men usually won custody cases because they could prove that they could provide for the child and women generally could not (since women had a hard time finding good jobs due to the prevailing attitude that they should stay at home with the kids). The man then often passed along the kid to the care of his current girlfriend, mother, sister or whatever.
Now, while yes, mothers tend to get custody these days, that's because judges tend to award custody to the primary caregiver, who is usually the mother. A mother who abandons her child to her ex-husband's care for two years is going to have an uphill battle in real life for custody. She is no longer the primary caregiver and worse, has proven that she is a bad mother. Good mothers, in our society, do not abandon their children, not even if they are leaving their children in a good situation. A father can disappear for years, be drug addicted, abusive or even in prison and still successfully sue for involvement in his child's life. A woman in a similar situation really wouldn't have a prayer, especially if, like Streep's character, she admitted to having a sex life after dumping her husband and son. Mothers are judged by a harsher standard than fathers in many ways in a divorce.
On the flip side, what's up with ragging on Hoffman's character for working so much before the divorce? That was completely normal back then--men worked to put food on the table, women stayed home with the kids and took care of the house. Oh, sure, it was changing by then, but it hadn't changed all that much. Nor has it changed in many places.
Sure, it would have been nice if Mr. Kramer had spent more time with his son, but according to the way that both he and his wife had been raised, he was doing his job as well as he could so that his wife could do *her* job, which just happened to be raising their child. He wasn't neglecting his family and sitting around the house while his wife worked *and* ran the household. He just did his job and trusted his wife to do hers. Yes, we do things differently today and yes, I'm sure that many women (me among them) are happy that women have more choices now. But it's silly to judge this guy by our standards now. He and his wife weren't playing by the same rules as our society does now.
I don't think it's healthy to be like Mrs. Kramer and demand that your spouse fulfill all your needs, anyway. A marriage is a partnership, not a spa or therapy. There are going to be times when your spouse, male or female, won't be there for you, for reasons both good and bad, and you just have to muddle through or even support your partner more than the reverse. That's part of marriage. Mrs. Kramer came across as a total idiot and I think that the film is clearly rigged emotionally in favor of Mr. Kramer from the get-go. I can feel sympathy for a woman in a similar situation, but I didn't find the character herself sympathetic. In fact, I found her eminently choke-worthy.
http://www.geocities.com/rpcv.geo/other.html
[deleted]
She's a great character. During the court I understood her position actually. There are no "black & white" heroes in the movie!
*Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge*
Sometimes, if you are (mentally) ill, it's better to leave. Kids are very sensitive.
I'm only saying that I can understand why she did what she did - and actually, she had guts! I didn't like her the first time I saw the movie, but now I do.
In the end, both parents were very nice and caring persons. And Billy was such a cute boy!
The problem is that both Joanna and Ted made bad choices - Joanna for leaving in the first place, and Ted for not spending enough time with his family. He seems very confident that she will return in a day or two, and doesn't really take the problem seriously. I believe he did wrong to Joanna by not being there for her, and that she, one way or another, was forced to leave. To live with that kind of pressure for years and not be able to talk to your husband ... I can only imagine what a burden that must have been for her. So no, I don't agree she's a cold hearted bitch. That's a huge simplification of a person. She and Ted were both human, which eventually led them to an unavoidable confrontation. I felt very bad for them both.
share