This movie presents Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones as sons of the same mother. Robert Duvall’s character is not legally adopted, but he is raised to believe that someone who is not his mother is his mother. This movie seems more interested in exploring racial issues, but not even that overtly. It makes certain that the pain of the mother is avoided as subject matter. It would be nice if all family members separated by adoption were able to accept each other this quickly and painlessly.
1981, starring Timothy Hutton as Donald Branch, Roseanne Arquette as Rose his wife, and Brenda Viccaro as social worker Lillian Jacobs.
This movie was inspired by actual events – three siblings are separated by adoption and reunited in adulthood due to the determination of the oldest, Donald Branch. It’s obvious that parents are excluded from an adoptee's life in order to establish the adopters as parents, but why on earth would the so-called ‘loving option’ forbid brothers and sisters a relationship with each other?
A couple of things I didn’t like about the movie: For one, this silly quote by one of the social workers, “Donald is no longer their brother. He has become their father.” What nonsense! Of course he is still their brother who takes care of them – just as adopters do not become the parents of the children they adopt. They become the people who are raising those children. And, the “real” parents were portrayed as happy with their unpleasant life style, which is highly unlikely. Also, I object to the failure to recognize that prostitutes are victims.
In the adoptive home, Donald and his fellow adoptee are seen participating in a rather solemn, mock Father’s Day celebration for Mr. Booth. In response to Donald’s reality based question of whether or not she has a brother, the other adoptee replies, “Aren’t you?” At which Donald consents to be called her brother because he perceives her desire for family, but his real feelings are obvious. He calls Caroline and David his “real” brother and sister in reference to this other child adopted by the Booths. He also consents to calling the adopter “dad” despite the lack of belonging he feels in the adopter’s home, which is easy to understand in light of the anger he displays to Donald for not accepting the myth that they are family.
There are additional displays of angry outbursts about Donald’s desire to find his brother and sister. Donald realizes that the adopters would lie to him in the interest of placing their desire to possess him above his need to be with his family. A final outburst occurs when the adopters attempt to punish Donald after he is caught searching the house for information about his brother and sister. Can you imagine how much angrier they would have been if he were searching for his parents, as some adoptees do and many more would like to do?
At this point, Donald, being 18 years old, declares “I don’t belong” as his reason for moving out of the adopters household. Furthermore, he voices the distinction between his “adoptive” name and his “real” name. When asked how the adoption is working out, he replies simply, “It’s not.”
Cruelly and selfishly, both sets of adopters to his brother and sister refuse to allow him contact with them. They are their “parents” Mrs. Jacobs says to him in defense of the selfishness. He points out the difference between adoption and “blood” relatives such as himself. This truth means absolutely nothing to the social worker.
“Your parents abandoned you not us,” she shouts angrily at him. Only, Donald’s frustration is not about being abandoned by his parents. It’s about being separated from his brother and sister, and for that the social workers and adopters are very much guilty.
As it turns out, neither his brother nor sister could accept their adopters either. His brother’s adopters even requested a termination of that adoption, and he admits to having been resented and abused by the woman who adopted him.
Donald says, “You don’t just get rid of someone,” referring to adoption. I agree, and I extend that to parents. You don’t just “get rid of” parents because infertile people won’t accept the fact that they can’t have children. The conflict in this movie was the separation of family by adoption. The resolution was reuniting the family. And don’t forget, this movie was based on actual events.
1999, starring Jane Seymour, A. Martinez, Bruce Davison, David Keith, and Cathy Lee Crosby.
This movie was inspired by actual events. Adopters are not the only people who keep children from their mothers. Jane Seymour stars as Abby Swenson (birthname), married name Abby Stewart, assumed name Rebecca, 2nd marriage last name Vega. When she decides to become pregnant (and can’t due to secondary infertility) she starts having horrible headaches and nightmares. She was diagnosed with amnesia 8 years earlier, and her in-laws do not consider it wise to bring a child into a world not knowing their mother’s history. She embodies the problems of both adoptees and a mother who’s lost her children to adoption. She’s lost her identity and her three children. Her search for her children begins with a search for her own identity. Her present husband is afraid that he will lose her if she finds her children/identity.
The children, she learns, are living with their father, who himself had been abandoned by his mother and who is raising her kids to believe the lies that she abandoned them then died. Also, he does not allowed them to talk about their mother. He says it would be “better for them” not to know anything about their mother or have any contact with her. Because of her amnesia, she believes that she did abandon her children and feels guilt about this. She is advised to forget her children and go on with her “new” life. The children experience a lot of anger about losing their mother, which they focus on her
It all sounds very much like adoption to me.
It’s a something of a mystery. So, I’m not going to say any more about it other than this movie is entertaining and an excellent vehicle for exploring adoption issues – especially the harm to children of trying to eliminate their real parents from their lives, raise them with lies, and the pain this causes a mother.
This movie not about an adoption but addresses many adoption issues. For instance, the protagonist was told she was abandoned by her mother, grew up with secrecy surrounding the whereabouts of her mother, was lied to, and felt abandonment issues that she had to deal with. Angie's stepmother tried to pretend she was Angie's mother. Angie left her own baby for awhile, but regretted it later. One amazing and gratifying detail for me is when the step-mother (who represented the adopter/mother-pretender) admitted that Angie was the mother of her own child and "we" (her and her husband) had no rights coming between mother and child (which they had been trying to do). So unlike mothers in real life, this woman was allowed to reclaim her child after she dealt with her problems. And, this would be adopter had a change of heart about taking another woman's child from her. Because it wouldn’t be a happy ending if Geena lost her baby, would it. Just as in real life it is not a happy ending when a mother loses her child to adoption. This is a good, entertaining movie for exploring adoption issues.
1999 – starring Sherry Stringfield (of ER) as Allison and Elizabeth Peña as Maria.
This movie is about taking babies from their mothers. This movie is about adoption. And, there are more adoption issues to explore in this movie than the obvious.
Lawyer Allison handles the paper work for an Asian couple adopting an Asian baby (it’s more common for white couples to be adopting Asian babies). Outside the adoption agency, she sees a mother, who soon turns up murdered, trying to get her baby back. (Interestingly, after announcing this mother’s death, the reporter introduces the next story: a dog who likes “playing mommy” to a litter of kittens.) As a result of investigating the agency, Allison is shot, and we witness her own desperation as a mother when her daughter, Linny, ends up missing.
Speaking of the stolen babies the adoption agency owner invokes the trite statement, “I’m giving them a chance at a real life.” Actually, the word usually used in this cliché is “better” – giving them a chance at a “better” life.
“These are their mothers,” Allison pleads with him.
“Not anymore,” he replies about the mothers holding their babies he’s about to profit from through adoption.
We’re left with the impression that the babies will simply be returned to their mothers. In reality, adopters will fight parents tooth and nail to keep the children they’ve been allowed to feel entitled to. The would-be Asian adopters from the movies beginning say that they love this child “like” she was their own.
Less obvious are the adoption issues in the relationship between Allison and her housekeeper and child-care provider, Maria. Allison admits to being jealous of the relationship between Maria and her daughter, Linny. Maria admits to having a “special” relationship with the girl because of the time they’ve spent together, but at no time does she demonstrate a desire to possess Linny or be known as her mother. Maria’s reasons for protecting another woman’s daughter are truly in the best interest of the child. This can be seen in her selfless desire to help both child and mother.
Maria also points out the arrogant assumptions white Americans make about foreign women, which are significant in international adoptions.
In the end, Maria and Allison become “family” by helping each other – unlike the tense, unequal, post reunion relationships formed between adopters and the mothers whose children they acquired through adoption.
1991, stars Anne Bancroft & Cara Buono as Gerry the mother, Lynn Whitfield as the fostercare provider, Alice Krige as the adopter, and Gloria Reuben as Barbara, the adoptee.
Based on the true story of four women and one adoption. The white mother, Gerry Cummings, becomes pregnant after being raped by a black man. She wants to keep her baby, and her husband is supportive of that decision. The decision to relinquish is based solely on social pressure about the baby’s race. Amazingly, this mother is able to name her baby, Barbara Ann Cummings, and that name is not stolen from her by adoption. Barbara lives in fostercare for seven years where she learns to call the fostercare provider named Corrine – mom. After seven years she is, ironically, adopted by a white couple, which completely negates the entire reason she lost her mother in the first place. Loss of her relationship with Corrine was the second loss in the girl’s life.
Barbara was a charity case for social activist Annalise, the adopter – another cause to work on. The home environment was portrayed as sterile and empty, and Barbara was never happy there. The couple soon divorced over problems created by adoption. Just as Barbara learns to call this man “daddy,” he disappears from her life. Desperate to be the mother of someone else’s child, at one point, Annalise slaps Barbara for calling her “mam” instead of “mom.”
A few unrelated observations -- As an adult, reuniting with Corrine, whom Barbara had called “mommy,” did not satisfy her need to find her mother. “How could you walk away from your own flesh and blood,” Barbara’s uncle asks his sister. That’s a good question that definitely needs to be asked. Barbara was finally able to make a connection with Annalise after finding her mother, not because the distance between her and her mother made the adopter seem more like a mother. It looked more like she was able to approach her adopter from a position of strength as a whole person after reconnecting with her mother. It was annoying to hear Annalise refer to Barbara as her daughter and Barbara’s children as her grandchildren, especially in light of the total lack of true attachment between them. Like most adoption movies, this one does not confront the kind of jealous possessiveness I’ve witnessed in adopters. I saw pictures of the real mother and daughter after the movie – they really do look a lot alike.
“She’s back, and I’m not going to say no to her again,” says Barbara’s mother, Gerry. As a mother who also lost her daughter to adoption, I know that feeling so well – that determination, that desire to learn from your mistake and try to undo the damage. This is a good movie for exploring adoption issues.
1993
starring Christopher Lambert,
Kurtwood Smith, Loryn Locklin,
and Jeffrey Combs
Futuristic USA: it's illegal for a woman to have more than one baby. Even though her first child died, Locklin’s character is put in prison for becoming pregnant again. Abortion is also illegal; when the babies are born they are taken from their mothers and become the property of the corporation that runs the prison. The babies are then “enhanced” to be more than human. This movie shows the strength of the bond between parents and their children. Also, that as a society we do not like the idea of children being taken from their parents. So, why do we perceive adoption to be such a sacred cow?
1980
directed by John Cassavetes
and stars his wife
Gena Rowlands
A woman is confronted with a life or death decision, to save a child orphaned by the Mafia at considerable risk to own life. His entire family is eliminated by the mob; however, six-year-old Phil escapes with Gloria, a former girlfriend of one of the gangsters. Gloria and Phil are chased throughout New York City as the mob is determined to kill the boy. Gloria’s only desire was to save his life; I do not remember Gena Rowlands wanting to be his “mother” at all in this early version. I get the feeling that is an OK concept in the new version starring Sharon Stone. But, in this early version, Gena does not take advantage of the fact that the boy’s family is dead. She does not try to turn the boy into her child. She is not thinking of herself and what she wants; she is only thinking of the child’s welfare.
1990
stars Natasha Richardson, Robert Duvall,
and
Faye Dunaway
First and foremost, I recommend this movie. In an anti-utopian America, fertile women are rare and used to breed children for upper class infertile wives and their husbands. It contains exactly my sentiments about adoption. This movie is not only well done and entertaining, but I highly recommend it for taking a brand new look at adoption.
1992
stars Rebecca De Mornay, Annabella Sciorra, Matt McCoy, Ernie Hudson, and John de Lancie
Posing as a nanny, a woman seeks revenge by taking another woman’s children from her. Yes, it is within our collective consciousness to know that this is a very cruel thing to do to a mother.
By artificial means, the nanny continues to produce milk after the loss of her own child and sneaks into the baby’s room to nurse him when his mother is not there to stop her. When the mother begins to realize that she is being replaced, she is extremely hurt, as any mother would be, including those mothers known as “birthmothers” because they lost their children to adoption.
Like adopters, the nanny is convinced that this mother must pay for her losses, including the loss of her fertility. By the end of the movie she is referring to another woman’s baby as “my baby.” In her mind, he has become her child just because she wanted him to be her child.
This movie demonstrates for me how ruthless and cold a woman would have to be inside to want to take a mother’s child from her. Any affection she may develop for the child cannot erase her willingness to harm its mother. Also, there is no circumstance that makes a mother owe her child to another woman.
1995
stars Jessica Lange,
Halle Berry, Cuba Gooding Jr,
and Samuel L. Jackson
Unlike the mother in the movie, very few of us threw our babies into dumpsters, but because those incidents are sensationalized in the media -- I'm afraid this movie will reinforce the notion that adoptees are trashed by their real mothers who are 'drugged up, bottom of the heap, scumbags.' We aren't. Like the mother in this movie, we are hurt by the loss of our children just like any other mother would be. The movie was obviously kinder to the adopter, but not all adopters are so rich and so loving. Like the movie "Secrets and Lies," I think this movie helps reinforce stereotypes about adoption, adopters, and the mothers of adopted children.
I'm completely baffled by the ending. Why would they paint such an unpleasant picture of the real mother and have the story end as it does? The entire movie being so pro-adopter and ending as it does makes me think that the conclusion is that mothers and their children should not be separated by adoption. Maybe the message is that troubled mothers should be helped to care for their children. Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part. Maybe the movie is only concerned with black babies being separated from their mothers or being raised without their cultural identity. Maybe the movie is not at all concerned with white adoptee babies and their identity problems. What do you think? Please EMAIL ME your opinion of the movie.
This movie isn’t just about Joan Crawford. It’s about adoption. Christina is not the only child to be abused by her adopters. There are other issues to consider while watching this movie. Motives for reproducing yourself are clear. Motives for wanting to be known as the parent of someone else’s child should always be questioned. Also, money does not guarantee a healthy, happy environment. And, the abuse an adoptee suffers is compounded by the emotional damaged that comes with adoption itself.
Produced by O'Hara - Horowitz Productions. Distributed by CBS, I believe.
1995 starring Frances Fisher as Carol Schaefer.
An excellent adoption movie. It shows the pain a mother feels from the loss of her child. Although the woman who adopted this woman's son is much nicer and more accepting and understanding than most adopters, I like the idea of her giving adopters a good role model to live up to. It was a good movie, and I highly recommend it for exploring adoption issues.
This is the title of an episode of Showtime's new The Outer Limits. Adopters motives are not as altruist as the motives of the aliens in this program, but the result is much the same. They get so wrapped up in what they want out of the situation that they lose track of anyone else's needs or feelings, including the needs of the children they adopt. But most specifically, the needs and feelings of the mothers of the children they adopt are completely ignored from the very beginning. This is an excellent vehicle for exploring adoption from a mother's perspective. Even the attitude that we are not fit to raise our own children. And, it raises the question of how important it is to be raised by people who look like you -- more than you might think.
1996
stars Brenda Blethyn , Timothy Spall, Phyllis Logan, Claire Rushbrook, and Marianne Jeaan-Baptiste
Excellent title for an adoption movie. But, I think they were a little confused about where the secrets and lies are most perpetrated. I kept the secret to protect my daughter from me (can you imagine anything more damaging for a woman to feel about herself), but it was never to protect me from her.
This was the first movie I'd ever seen that explored adoption from a mother's perspective. It has been my experience that the mothers of children lost to adoption do not fit the description of the mother in this story. Most of those mothers that I've met are intelligent and doing better financially. I would not want viewers to think that she is representative of us all. It is about adoption and that particular mother character, but it is not definitive of the entire experience of mothers who lose their children. Nor does this movie represent the entire adoption experience of adoptees either. I was not that impressed with it.
Sounds like a good slogan for CPS. What could be the worst thing to ask of anyone? Watch the movie and remember that America is asking, demanding, and flat out taking this very thing from people everyday.
1996
starring Bridgette Wilson, Peter Boyle, and Scott Chohen
A surrogate “mother” (incubating another woman’s fertilized egg) has a hidden agenda. Involving the loss of her own parents, foster care, and murder. Watch this movie and see how well you do keeping it straight in your mind who the mother of the baby is ans who is not. At the end of the movie, the mother expresses the mistaken belief that adoption, using another woman’s child to feel like a mother, would be simpler than using another woman to give birth to your child. This statement reflects the common societal ignorance of adoption issues. Adoption is not simple, and it’s not harmless.
An adoptee finds her mother and moves in with her. They both work out some of the problems caused by adoption in their lives. The movie touched on some of the ways adoption complicates people’s lives, but it was very nice – very calm, very gentle. I enjoyed watching it, but it does not accurately portray the angst and pain I see in real life reunions. It was a pleasant movie.
Three women might be the mother of an adopted boy lost after a plane crash with his adopters. One mother felt she needed to choose between college and her baby. This should NOT happen – in our affluent country especially! One mother was forced by government officials to give away her son. This woman clearly needed help. But instead, society helped themselves to her baby and discarded her. One mother was under the mistaken belief that her child would be better off with genetic strangers than with her and no father.
Jaclyn Smith plays one of the mothers, and Tyne Daily plays a conniving adoption attorney who separates children from their mothers -- for money. This movie does not portray us as low-lifes and covers many adoption issues from a mother’s perspective. For once, a movie that leaves adopters out of the picture instead of mothers – as if we cease to exist after adoption. The end sucks! It is an obeisance to the sacred cow -– adoption -- and venerates the sanctity of lies when they are perpetrated for the sake of adoption.
A man adopted at birth -- by a corporation. His entire life is a fabrication - a lie. It sounds like a real adoption story to me. In this movie, as in real life, the impact of adoption on the mothers of these children is dismissed as if losing a child is nothing to a mother. Except for this one line: "They got rid of her, but they couldn't erase the memory," in reference to Truman's true love who was attempting to tell him that he was being lied to. For me, this is symbolic of a mother who must be gotten rid of in order not to destroy the illusion that adopters are parents to her child. Like with adoption in the real world, the entire world knew the truth of his life, but collaborated in the deception.
In Truman's fake world, the moon was always full and in the same spot day and night. There's a scene where the sun is setting and the moon is shown next to it in full view. We all know this is not how it really is, but Truman accepts this unnatural situation without question -- exactly the way adoptees accept genetic strangers as their "parents" because it's all they've ever known. But the moon doesn't ever stand along side the setting sun like that, and adopters are not the parents of other people’s children. Christof, the creator of Truman's false world, says this of that sort of acceptance, "We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented."
I want to point out that the actress posing as Truman's mother in his fake world raised him from birth, and he believes she is his mother because that's what he's always been told. In that respect she is as much his mother as any adopter is the mother of another woman's child. But in this movie, she is never accepted as his mother by anyone but Truman.
Another adoption myth was exposed in this movie: the fantasy of a "chosen child." Truman was not chosen just as all adoptees are NOT chosen. He was "in competition" with five other babies and just happened to be the one born first. Adopters do not choose an adoptee; they take the first baby they can get their hands on.
One last observation, when Truman leaves his fake world in search of the truth -- the entire world cheers despite their complicity in deceiving him. This is the same paradoxical attitude I see in the world about adoption in general. Everyone plays along with the lies of adoption, but in reality we prefer truth and truth seeking.
Sylvia, the woman who wants Truman to know the truth: "You're a liar and a manipulator, and what you've done to Truman is sick . . . What right do you have to take a baby and turn his life into some kind of mockery?"
The adopter, Christof, answers: "I have given Truman a chance to lead a normal life."
