Something that bothered me…..
-
gingersnaps1 — 19 years ago(May 17, 2006 07:31 AM)
This was brought up in another thread. I am glad that I wasn't the only one that had a problem with this scene.
Kidnapping happens to all types. It just depends on what the abductor wants. This movie was around the time of Adam Walsh. Yeah, John Walsh had a good living in hotel management, but that wasn't what the abductor wanted. He raped the poor boy and did other things I don't want to say. Adam was born the same year as me. I remember it very vividly as a child. I guess that is why I have a problem with this scene.
Ginger
The Devil made me send this! -
evixir — 17 years ago(July 10, 2008 10:58 AM)
Well, in her defense, it was a small-town Iowa college campus in the middle of the day and that was the medical building, so a few moments of her daughter sitting in her stroller on the front steps still in eyesight, mind you was probably a fairly safe bet in the early 80s.
Not brilliant, and I noticed it too and it bothered me as well, but it was a pretty safe gamble. Child abductors don't typically prowl college campuses, as a rule.
Emma may have seemed selfish, but she always put her three children first and cared very much for them. She was married to a philandering man who had few scruples and thought little of moving the family halfway across the country to follow his girlfriend around, and she was under emotional control by her mother no matter where she went. Altogether, not an easy situation to live with when you factor in three small kids that you're basically rearing on your own since the father is always off messing around with other women. -
rebekel — 16 years ago(November 21, 2009 05:59 AM)
Aren't you being a little harsh on Flap? We have no evidence that the is "Philandering"; he has ONE affair (Just as Emma does), and I believe he ends up marrying Janice. (Doesn't Aurora refer to "you and Janice" not being able to raise the kids? or is that in Evenng Star?)
And Emma did NOT always put her children first - She ignores Tommy and expects him to watch his bother and sister when he is a child himself. When she is talking to the John Lithgow character at the supermarket she yells at the kids and tells them to go to the car. She is not watchihg them at all, but is busy flirting.
And notice that Flap is the one taking care of the daughter in the campus scene when Emma first confonts him. (A dad taking such responsibility was highly unusual at the time the movie was set - usually only the most dedicated Dads did this). While he is caring for the daughter, Emma is pursuing and carrying out her affair. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 17 years ago(August 18, 2008 09:03 AM)
It's interesting, I saw this movie in the theater when it came out, and I remember NO comments about this aspect of the movie. It was a different era and this was not meant to show Emma as stupid or irresponsible, and was not taken that way at the time.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
SuperCatMonkey — 17 years ago(August 18, 2008 09:23 AM)
I saw this movie in the theater when it came out, and I remember NO comments about this aspect of the movie. It was a different era and this was not meant to show Emma as stupid or irresponsible, and was not taken that way at the time.
Exactly. At the time no one would have thought twice about that. It was safe for kids to go out and play, or be alone back then. In the '60s and early '70s, I could play outside and roam the neighborhood without my parents knowing where I was, and it was assumed that I would come home, this starting at 4-5 years old. The news and movies weren't full of reports of creeps and perverts cruising for victims, and people simply didn't think this way. Other people weren't thought of as predators. These days, I wouldn't let my kids out of my sight for even a second.
I am Threadkiller. No further replies to
this thread
are necessary. -
drexeltoker — 17 years ago(August 31, 2008 02:38 AM)
i agreethe people who claim this "kidnapping" issue of poor judgement by Emma are utterly clueless bastards that not only miss the point of the scene but also do not understand the gist and depth of the movie
it [leaving the child like that ]is not relevantthis was the early 80sif you're not old enough to remember the time back then, then don't comment as if you didn't already know that it was a more carefree era. guess what, in in the 1950s children used to play with Mercurythat's right, that cancer causing element known as mercury! times change.. -
ec1979 — 16 years ago(March 09, 2010 12:36 PM)
What is this, the third thread on this topic? Everyone needs to relax. The kid is in eye-shot and ear-shot. Emma only wanted to talk to Janice for a few seconds. People are so critical of this kind of thing, times were different back thenand today, kids are so coddled, they're all growing up to be spoiled jerks.
-
Hatton_Mann — 15 years ago(February 03, 2011 09:41 AM)
It was a different time. I remember seeing this in the movies and that sort of thing was not as common as it is today, or if it was you didn't hear about it.
Not that I support what she did, but she was relativly close and makes mention to the girl. -
hakelsey2 — 15 years ago(February 04, 2011 04:24 PM)
I can understand this; even without me being a mother. I watched that scene closely the other night when it was on. I think Emma actually strolled Melanie inside if the building, very quickly. You can see the stroller behind the glass, next to the door.
May not have been much safer, but I don't think she left her at the edge of the steps. This was an uncut version, so, that may not have been shown in any other version. -
scrapbookgirl — 15 years ago(March 27, 2011 09:33 PM)
It was not safer back in the 60's and 70's People only think it was. Many children went missing back then, riding their bikes, playing in their yard, walking to school,, or to the storego to www.charleyproject.org, go to chronological order search, put in the 1950's, 60's, 70s..heck even put in the 20's and 30's..many missing children. People were just oblivious back then because these cases weren't on the news every five minutes.it gets tiring how many times I see someone say how bad it is today, but back in the good old days is was so safeno it was not.
-
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 14 years ago(April 04, 2011 03:54 PM)
Got any citations to back this up? Nobody is saying that child kidnappings/murders didn't happen back then, but that they were rarer.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=1958
US Child Murder Rate Soars
According to this article, recent statistics show the child (13 and younger) murder rate is 4.1 per 100,000. Whereas in 1976 -1997, it never got above 2.1.
And, not all those murders are by strangers. Family members are actually quite likely to be the culprits.
And, there's this:
Yet the data show something surprising: 85 percent of U.S. counties reported no child homicides by any cause in 1997, while just 7 percent experienced two or more.
"In great swaths of the country, child murder is virtually unknown," Murray said. "The problem is confined mainly to the big cities of the East and West coasts, and to the Southwest."
And we're talking about 1982 Nebraska. Her boys were more at risk of harm when they were in the swimming pool scene, than Melanie was being left a short distance from her mother.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi