Change Your Image
jsinmaine
Reviews
God Bless the Child (1988)
I have some comments about God Bless THe Child
I wanted to hear other peoples' feedback on this movie. YES. I know it was FICTIONAL. THere was no THERESA JOHNSON starving and begging on the streets with her 7 year old daughter. They were fictional characters played by actors who get plenty of money. But I wanted to find out if people believe that things like this can happen to real people in real life. Especially when these people have DONE NOTHING WRONG. Obviously some people are on welfare, starving and begging on the streets because of CHOICES they make. But I did not see ONE THING that THeresa did that seemed irresponsible. So many people believe that anybody who works and "finds out what they like to do", who "has self confidence" and who chooses to obey their employer can live JUST A LITTLE BETTER than THIS.
Please, people! Tell me what you think of this. I know this movie was TERRIBLY MORBID and depressing. But it was excellently done. Give me your feedback.
The Burning Bed (1984)
I think the acting was awesome. The producing was decent, but there were some problems with the movie
I really didn't find any problems with the acting. Farrah Fawcett, with very limited acting experience behind her at the time, played Francine Hughes just like you'd expect to see the realistically battered young wife and mother with limited means and options in her life. Paul LeMatt was really good as Mickey, a professional actor effectively playing a character he probably wasn't personally comfortable playing.
It was good the way they clearly show the two of them from the time they met as teenagers, throughout the years of their marriage and divorce, abuse which progressed over time, the children, and the fateful night which motivated Francine to end the abuse once and for all. Fawcett's narration in the movie was good and it was not her fault that they had her read some things a little out of order in time.
Showing both of their family backgrounds revealed that Mickey was probably not abused as a child and may have been the only "wife beater" in his family, which dispelled a stereotype that all people who behave as he does are "trained" by child abuse. Alcohol seemed to be a contributing factor in his abuse, but the movie also showed his consistent pattern of jealousy, possessiveness of Francine, inability and unwillingness to provide financially or in any other way help his family, and his total disregard for Francine's right to be comfortable and be her own person. I think this was the main cause of his violence.
While some say that Francine's mother was unrealistically portrayed as condoning her son-in-law for beating her daughter, I think that's not the case. If you closely observe and listen to her, she's not saying it's o.k. for Mickey to do what he does. She's simply saying she is incapable of helping Francine and is clearly revealing that she, herself was a battered wife with no way out, and that could, in large part, be an indirect cause of Francine's inability to save herself from Mickey.
They did show Francine as a pretty strong person, most of the time unafraid to stand up to Mickey and utilize everything within her means to not be a victim. I like that. So many women fortunate enough to not have to endure what she did, get the mistaken impression that it could not happen to them because of the wiser "choices" they make than someone like her would have. It's a good wake-up call to let people know it could happen to anybody, with any type of personality. It was only due to the kids that made it difficult for Francine to rid herself of Mickey. One very effective scene is where he threatens her life with the wording:"if you leave, the kids won't have no mother." Had it just been the two of them, a strong woman could refuse to live in fear of death threats. Even if he manages to kill her, she can let him know she will not be intimidated for as long as she lives. But when there are kids involved, she cannot take any chances of them losing her. And no matter how much she may have consciously not listened to her mother's "helplessness about abuse", don't we all have that little voice in our head that tells us we don't deserve to have better lives than what mommy and daddy had?
There were, however some things unclear about the story. At the start, we see Francine's lawyer trying and failing to help her, his getting frustrated, and her obvious hesitation to talk to him. In the real life situation, she would have had to at some point develop a relationship of trust with him. The greatest lawyer in the world cannot get anybody acquitted for dousing a sleeping man's mattress with gasoline and lighting him on fire, without cooperation from their client. There's one specific scene where Francine's lawyer overhears her talking on the phone, in jail to somebody whom she informs that she is o.k. and that she is hugging them through the phone also. He's observing the phone conversation yet has no discussion with her about it. Wouldn't the story have seemed so much clearer if he'd asked her if this is one of her kids, and she enlightens him to the fact that her kids don't blame her for what happened? At her trial, we see the very important testimony of her oldest daughter, Kristy, boldly, comfortably and confidently answering all of the lawyer's questions on the witness stand, confirming to the entire courtroom that her father abused her mother throughout her life, and that at the age of 12 she does not miss her 32 year old father whom her mother set on fire. Couldn't they have simply squeezed in a dialog where he asks Francine if he may talk to Kristy, her reply that he must, and their confirmation that this may be a "break" in the case to get her acquitted, as it was shown in the trial?
Also when Fawcett narrates the story of what happened the night of March 9, 1977 where among other things, Mickey threatens to kill Francine if she does not quit going to school, the viewing does not follow the narration. We see Francine first enduring Mickey's physical abuse and demands that she quits school and at first she ignores him. Then we later see her burning her school books while she narrates that she was not about to quit school and let Mickey have his way until after the cops are called, see him do nothing, charge him with nothing, they leave, and then he almost murders her, goes berserk and wants to have sex. She says it was not until he completely wore her down that she burned the books. Yet it's after we see her throwing the books in the barrel of fire, that she attempts to finish eating and feeding the kids when Mickey goes berserk, almost kills her and wants to have sex. Wouldn't it have to be the other way around?
I do think for the most part that it was done well. The very crucial and compelling points are brought out very well. All actors, including his family, her mother and the kids play their roles excellently. And I think this is a movie that anybody should see which will enlighten and inform all people about a reality in our society which could affect anybody.