Kramer vs. Kramer: Who were you rooting for?

[LivingProof]

Last year I was in a group discussion about this movie. I was a bit surprised to find out nobody, I mean NOBODY but I sympathized with Joanna. Tonight that discussion somehow came to my mind, so I looked it up for reviews and online discussions. It was hell of a bumpy journey to find a few others who shared somewhat similar thoughts as mine. I'm hoping to find a few more here on INFJf, as I figured we are probably the only weirdos on earth who are capable of coming up with a reasoning to justify a bad mother's walking out on her child.

Here is a clip of the court scene. Meryl Streep wrote most of the dialogues I heard. She basically said everything I can think of to somewhat justify her actions. Sadly most people loathe her so much they don't even care to listen.

[youtube]35GfPszsq_Y[/youtube]

All thoughts would be appreciated. Even if you haven't seen the movie, this clip is worth a view just for Meryl Streep's exquisite portrayal of a very INFJ-ish character.

 

[This]

I can't use the word justify but I can empathize, however I don't understand what would make her a more fit parent than the father. If there was something bad the father was doing I could justify it but being that she walked away from the child she knew the consequences and should have to suffer the consequence of that unless the child is in some danger. But I thought the line of questioning was ridiculous you couldn't get away with harassing like that in real life, there would be so many objections.

 

[LivingProof]

I can't use the word justify but I can empathize, however I don't understand what would make her a more fit parent than the father. If there was something bad the father was doing I could justify it but being that she walked away from the child she knew the consequences and should have to suffer the consequence of that unless the child is in some danger. But I thought the line of questioning was ridiculous you couldn't get away with harassing like that in real life, there would be so many objections.

I used the word justify loosely. I agree with everything you said. The initial mistake she made was marrying the wrong man. After that, tragedy was bound to happen. First she got depressed. The fault fell on her emotionally unavailable husband and her own decision to marry him. The second round of tragedy could go two different ways. Either she put up with it and lived the rest of her life in depression until she committed suicide, or she left. Of these two options she had, I really think she chose the better one. There should've been a better option than walking out on her child, but sadly, her husband wouldn't listen. Of course, she had to bear the consequences of her choice, but I blame her husband for leaving her no better options.

 

[arbygil]

Man, it's been years since I've seen that movie. I saw it when it came out in the theaters, but I was quite young, maybe 10-years-old. What made it a landmark movie, was that no one at that time gave custody of children to the father. And divorce was still an anathema.

I rooted for the father, because when divorce did happen, custody automatically went to the mother regardless of the situation. This was the first time we ever saw custody given to the father. Her portrayal *had* to be controversial and a bit uncomfortable, because it had to prove that a woman didn't have to have custody of their child, and the father could fight for those rights.

So it was groundbreaking for father's rights, really.

But I know what you're saying; and after all these years (and in the age/at the age I am now) it's a fairer assessment of both characters. If you haven't seen the movie, you really need to see the whole thing to get a picture of all the characters. Mind you it's a bit dated now, so the impact won't be as strong to you if you do see it. But believe me, it was alarming and mind-blowing when it was first shown.

 

[This]

I used the word justify loosely. I agree with everything you said. The initial mistake she made was marrying the wrong man. After that, tragedy was bound to happen. First she got depressed. The fault fell on her emotionally unavailable husband and her own decision to marry him. The second round of tragedy could go two different ways. Either she put up with it and lived the rest of her life in depression until she committed suicide, or she left. Of these two options she had, I really think she chose the better one. There should've been a better option than walking out on her child, but sadly, her husband wouldn't listen. Of course, she had to bear the consequences of her choice, but I blame her husband for leaving her no better options.

Maybe I just don't exactly understand what it is her husband did? I don't know the whole story. Why was custody not an issue taken care of at the time of the divorce, if it was the mother surely always gains custody of the child unless the child is old enough to make a decision which isn't something I always even agree with.

 

[LivingProof]

Man, it's been years since I've seen that movie. I saw it when it came out in the theaters, but I was quite young, maybe 10-years-old. What made it a landmark movie, was that no one at that time gave custody of children to the father. And divorce was still an anathema.

I rooted for the father, because when divorce did happen, custody automatically went to the mother regardless of the situation. This was the first time we ever saw custody given to the father. Her portrayal *had* to be controversial and a bit uncomfortable, because it had to prove that a woman didn't have to have custody of their child, and the father could fight for those rights.

So it was groundbreaking for father's rights, really.

But I know what you're saying; and after all these years (and in the age/at the age I am now) it's a fairer assessment of both characters. If you haven't seen the movie, you really need to see the whole thing to get a picture of all the characters. Mind you it's a bit dated now, so the impact won't be as strong to you if you do see it. But believe me, it was alarming and mind-blowing when it was first shown.

Spoiler

Uh... The court actually awarded the custody to the mother, but in the end she gave it up. The father was the sympathetic protagonist after all.
It's been such a long time since you saw it so, forgive me for correcting you.

 

[LivingProof]

Maybe I just don't exactly understand what it is her husband did? I don't know the whole story. Why was custody not an issue taken care of at the time of the divorce, if it was the mother surely always gains custody of the child unless the child is old enough to make a decision which isn't something I always even agree with.

Plot summary from IMDb

Spoiler

Ted Kramer is a career man for whom his work comes before his family. His wife Joanna cannot take this anymore, so she decides to leave him. Ted is now faced with the tasks of housekeeping and taking care of himself and their young son Billy. When he has learned to adjust his life to these new responsibilities, Joanna resurfaces and wants Billy back. Ted however refuses to give him up, so they go to court to fight for the custody of their son.

 

[arbygil]

That's right! No worries for the correction (see spoiler). The custody battle was a hard one, though - still a really good movie. I'm going to have to see it again now. And either way, it made the father that much more sympathetic to the audience and gave a reason to allow custody battles to become more balanced.