Gil's abortion comment rubbed me the wrong way
-
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 09:30 AM)
It was not presented as "it's OK for one person to decide in this situation", it was Gil passing the buck, and getting a deserved negative reaction from his wife for it.
It was presented that way by Gil. Agreed, not by Karen, but certainly by Gil. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 02:48 PM)
It was presented that way by Gil [it's Ok for one person to decide]. Agreed, not by Karen, but certainly by Gil.
True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.
From other posts in this thread, you have made it clear that it angers you when someone expresses that mindset, that it's OK for one person (the woman) to decide in this situation. And it made you mad that a character in this movie expresses that mindset. But that doesn't mean that point of view was being pushed on us. That's part of why I watch movies: to see people who think and do things differently from me.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 05:09 PM)
True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.
I thought they were making it pretty clear (through Gil) about the whole "my body, my choice." But I can also agree Karen presented another POV. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 05:12 PM)
True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.
From other posts in this thread, you have made it clear that it angers you when someone expresses that mindset, that it's OK for one person (the woman) to decide in this situation. And it made you mad that a character in this movie expresses that mindset. But that doesn't mean that point of view was being pushed on us. That's part of why I watch movies: to see people who think and do things differently from me.
There were two characters in the movie who hinted at having an abortion. First was Martha Plimpton's character. The other was Gil.
While I agree with you that the Karen character, presented another POV, having two character pretty much say "It's the woman's choice and nobody else's" comes off to me like I was being preached to just a bit. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 06:01 PM)
Ah, but did Gil really believe that? He actually seemed kind of sheepish as if he didn't really mean it when he said it. At least he was just uing it as a get out clause so he didn't have to say what he really fealt about the matter. Because if he said what he really fealt it might incur her anger only to find that not saying anything and attempting to pass the buck p*ssed her off even more. Either that or he just didn't want to accept any of the responsibility for the final decision.
I can't remember what Martha Plimpton's character might have said so you'll need to refresh my memory on that one. But some times writers don't necesarrily put things in a movie because that is what they personally believe in as muchtobegratefulfor as stated. Perhaps you've merely misunderstood their intention. And even if it did, alot of films do preach at their audience although some a little more than others. Look at "Philadelphia" for example which while I thought was a good film I thought got a little too heavy handed in its preaching. Although in fairness that was more or less whole point of "Philadelphia" while "Parenthood" I suppose was only supposed to be a comedy drama which wasn't potentially supposed to be making any political point in the first place. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 06:38 AM)
I think Gil legitimately didn't want the kid. Whether it's because he didn't want another child (expense) or didn't want the responsibility of making the decision, that's debatable (I can agree on that).
Martha Plimpton's character got into a fight with her husband. He storms off and she mentions something about "If he thinks I'm having this child now he's insane>." Or something to that effect. It was once again the whole "Only the woman has a say" thing. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 06:58 AM)
I think Gil's initial reaction was "NOOOOOOO!" when she told him. Since he later seemed genuinely happy that she was pregnant, I think it was the initial shock of getting this news when he had quit his job.
As for Martha's remark when she gets into a fight with her husband, I think this movie would have been unrealistic if the immature newly-married teens did not at least bring up the subject of abortion. And her making that remark is again, not pushing the "only the woman has a say" agenda. As mentioned above, it was just depicting the reality if she wanted to, she could have aborted her pregnancy with no input from him. And I did not see this presented as a good thing; here is this teenager potentially deciding to abort on a whim after a fight with the father.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 08:47 AM)
Two separate characters push forth the same idea. How is that not a little preachy?
Now I'm not saying I would be as upset if it was a pro-choice statement. I just don't like the "my body, my choice" part of pro-choice. I believe such an important, life-changing decision shouldn't be left up to 1 person. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 04:01 PM)
You're making the assumption that the writer is being preacy? That's potentially not what the writer was attempting to do. Put it like this. If two characters who are villains condone murder does that all of a sudden mean that the writer is trying to preach that it is?
These are fictional situations but based on fact and the writer has possibly thought, well what would more than one individual say or do in the situation. Doesn't mean he or she agrees with it but its what might happen.
Personally I think you're being a little narrow minded and not considering that it wasn't being preachy. Its just that two characters have said something that you don't like and you're ready to jump to the hasty conclusion that the writer has had some kind of agenda. I could write a movie where two characters push foward the idea that capital punishment is ok (something that I'm against), doesn't mean that that's an agenda that I'm pushing. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 06:32 AM)
You're making the assumption that the writer is being preacy?
I'm assuming they are, you are assuming they aren't. What's the harm?
Personally I think you're being a little narrow minded and not considering that it wasn't being preachy. Its just that two characters have said something that you don't like and you're ready to jump to the hasty conclusion that the writer has had some kind of agenda.
And you're all upset that I said it. So what's the f-cking problem? I said it. I feel that way. You are upset that I said it. What's the big deal? -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(April 03, 2010 04:57 AM)
You're assuming that they are pushing foward an agenda on very limited and circumstantial evidence. You've made the assumption based on two characters who to be fair make comments that a lot of people in the same or similar situations would make. How is that pushing foward an agenda? I've chosen to point out why I think you're being narrow minded and not considered the fact that they MIGHT not be as has the fellow poster who shares my opinion.
I'm not getting upset just pointing out that I disagree, if any one is getting upset it's your self. Although if I was a writer/filmmaker and somebody made a bold accusation about something that I had written and came to a hasty conclusion I think I would have a right to be upset. Especially when there's really very little to back it up apart from two charcters who happen to make comments that YOU do not like. If any one is making a big deal out of this its your self. Don't get all bent out of shape just because I happen to disagree with you and explain why. You've felat a certain way without considering the alternative which has been suggested to you and yet you still cling on to the belief that you're being preached to. If you disagree then fine, but I'm still going to say in my view that you're being narrow minded. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(April 03, 2010 06:29 AM)
I agree. Having 2 people make comments you find similar does not make the movie "preachy". If something was going to be "preached", it would be presented in a positive context. Instead, you have one of the comments made by a immature teenager after an immature fight, the other made by as a cop-out by a married man and taken as such by his wife. If anything, the movie makes the "it's the woman's choice and the woman's choice only" stance look pretty bad.
It bothers you, as you've stated, because characters SAID these things. I don't get upset when characters in movies say things I don't agree with, especially when
a) it is quite plausible that these characters would say that in those situations, and
b) it is not presented in a positive way as I've noted above.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 06:02 PM)
Sorry, don't see it. In one case, a married man makes a cop-out statement "giving" his wife the choice, when what he wants is for her to make the choice that he wants her to make, without him having to say it.
In the other case, an immature teen girl who is in a relationship with an equally immature teenage boy and pregnant by him, threatens to abort the baby after having an immature fight.
Sorry, I don't see what is "the same idea" being pushed here, other than (news flash) people with unplanned and inopportune pregnancies consider abortion. And when discussing it, say things that you apparently don't approve of.
But that's not preaching. As Gauis notes, depicting something in a movie is not the same as giving it the stamp of approval. There is no evidence that the director/producers agree with what either character thinks. But is it plausible that both characters would say what they said? Absolutely.
The other commonality is that both decide to have the baby, and appear happy they did. If anything is being preached here, it's "have the baby."
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 06:35 AM)
The other commonality is that both decide to have the baby, and appear happy they did. If anything is being preached here, it's "have the baby."
These are two separate issues that you are combining. They are both related to the same topic, but do not confuse the two.
Whether the character choose to have the baby or not is irrelevent, becasue I'm not disputing they did have the kids.
The outcome and the way they got there are two separate issues. I'm not debating the outcome. I'm not even debating the fact that the characters are seemingly pro-choice (I'm not telling anyone they can't be either). I'm debating over who gets a say - which according to the characters in these situations is only the pregnant party. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 09:09 PM)
Yes, and you were also debating that the makers of the film were pushing foward an agenda which may have not been the case. And what I have also said is that the father for instance might have a say but ultimately who's decision is it? Gil for instance could have said to Karen he wanted her to keep the baby but who do you think would have had the final say? Noone but the mother ever has the ultimate choice. Wether that's right or wrong I don't know.
-
CALICOWBOY1017 — 15 years ago(April 11, 2010 12:16 PM)
8POILER WARNING
I thought the whole point of that was that it was a cop-out answer on Gil's part. She says to him "Why don't you say what you're really thinking? That I should have an abortion?" He says "I didn't say that. That's a decision every woman has to make on her own," and her response to that is "What are you running for Congress? Don't give me that. I want your opinion." As for pushing an agenda, the scene in the movie raises the issue but it doesn't push an agenda either way, in my honest opinion. The movie does, however, ultimately present parenthood in a positive light, as a "roller coaster" in a way, but the movie, in spite of that one scene, I feel, doesn't present being either pro-life or pro-choice, even though it presents the issue, but it doesn't form a conclusion about that specific topic in general as a whole only in the life of that particular character played by Mary Steenburgen. -
lpt0127 — 15 years ago(May 08, 2010 11:08 AM)
chill out..that obviously wasn't how he truely felt..of course he wanted her to have the baby..he was just stressed to the gills (no pun intended) when they were having that conversationGil had no game and coulnd't get clients laid like the almighty Phil Richards..so he quit his job..
in the end, everything worked out..they soon had 5 kids..then 6..then had a dozen and pretended they were doughnuts..