What do you think is the underlying message in this Salon.com article?

grapesgum

I don't see an underlying message. I see yet another entitled, narcissistic adopter who thinks that the world revolves around her needs and that adoption loss for adoptees and natural parents is insignificant. I am hoping that I see that last pathetic, desperate attempt to defend the scourge of adoption as it is practiced in the US.

SJM

The message I got was that there's yet another clueless adoptive parent in the world who thinks 3 years parenting a toddler and one seminar makes her an expert.

"In other words, Garcia chose loss first, adoption second. Clearly, loss compels him more; it's the gray-tinted lens through which every adoption scenario in the movie is seen."

Welcome to my world. Everything I've ever seen in my life has been viewed through the lens of adoption. She only had to endure it for the length of a movie. My heart fails to bleed for her.

kitta

I interpreted her complaint to be that adoptive parents and adoption in general were portrayed in the movie as part of a negative painful loss for adopted people and their natural parents. She wanted to let people know that adoption, overall in her opinion, is "positive" and that most adopted people would agree with her.....she says.

However, the movie is about loss, and focuses on the losses in adoption. From what I read about the movie, and especially about the roles played by Annette Bening(natural mother) and Naomi Watts(adult adopted person), the long-lasting effects of loss in adoption for separated families were demonstrated in this movie quite well.

I guess that is what the writer of the salon article found uncomfortable.

Anha S

The message, to me, is that the AP author can't handle being left out of the equation. Or that negative things do surround adoption. And a failure to understand that her story isn't everyone elses.

1and1ontheway

It seems to me, the writer took the movie personally as if it were supposed to be a universal comment on what all adoptions are like, rather than a narrative that was scripted to show maximum drama and pathos.

It was not a journalistic piece or a documentary. Fictional narratives are not supposed to be "balanced". The fact that it upset her does not make it a flawed movie.

AnnaBelle

I don't think the message is underlying at all. I think it is sadly brazen.

I think this woman is very uncomfortable hearing any viewpoints that challenge her own perceptions/desires.

If she is not equipped to hear opposing viewpoints to her own, or if her sense of herself as a parent is so shaken by such a film, I assert that adoption mightn't be for her.

And yet, here we are. Can't wait to see what she has to say in 10-15 years.

Wellspring

The director/writer said he wanted to make a film about "people who live haunted by the absence of a loved one ......"
Hence "Why 'Mother and Child' insults parents like me".
If I had a nickle for every time a mother or adopted person spoke of their loss and an adopter interjected with "what about me?" or "I'm insulted", I'd be rich.

minimouse68

I took it to be yet another rant by an adoptive parent against those who try to tell the truths of adoption and what adoptees feel. Sorry your last question got deleted, I found it to be an entirely valid question, thanks.

Honest & Sober

Without underestimating the feelings of adoptive parents Sarah's message is Hollywood must produce movies that not only show adoptive parents as the nature good guys but gives them more air time.

Her interpretation of the movie is without a doubt skewed by her own interpretation of how she sees her role and place of a being adoptive mother in real life.

Bea

I don't think there's an underlying message. It's a movie review with a subjective point of view, and it's reviewing a movie that has a subjective point of view. The reviewer feels that the movie is missing important pieces of the picture. She makes it clear that the vocabulary that uses "real parents" to mean "biological parents" is wrong; that adoption has elements of loss and connection, pain and gain.

Jennifer L

I think that people get way too bent out of shape over fiction. But there were people who were just as upset at "Orphan" because it portrayed an international adoptee as a homocidal maniac and at "Juno" because it was too "sunshine and roses."

I *do* see her point that AP's are portrayed rather negatively lately and especially, adoptive fathers are depicted as men who can't love someone that doesn't share their genes and in these stories, end up walking out.

But adoption is way too broad and complex of an issue for everyone's perspective to be represented in a single movie. Sometimes, it's a matter of just acknowledging the fact that it's just a movie and let it go.

If she wants to make a movie that she feels adequately represents her perspective on adoption, she's more than welcome to do so. It's a free country.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: