No comments yet?

You are correct roghache. This movie is one that i regret watching.

Child abuse has probably occurred for millennia and there is evidence that in the 20th century, it occurred at a particularly high rate in 1970’s decade. As those victims found their voices in later years, and as the true degree of the damage inflicted was collectively realized, the collective consciousness developed a “vaccine” in the form of fear, paranoia, suspicion, guilt, and self-isolation, and it is this monster vaccine that this story tackles.

I have seen fear and paranoia take a firmer and firmer grip on society in my lifetime and I find it truly distressing that coaches, teachers, and scout leaders have to be afraid to give a child a hug. I believe children need healthy well-intentioned hugs and strokes, and to deprive them of that denotes child abuse just as certainly as abusive touches.

A healthy childhood involves taking risks and being on one’s own at times. The cost is that some children will be hurt and killed. To protect ALL children from ANY harm EVER would be to destroy childhood. Not worth it.

I think Anna would have defined her relationship with Leo as much more substantial than “great sex” - - it seemed to cause a holistic personal revolution for her. She came alive on so many levels, and yes maybe she was a little giddy with the discovery and maybe her judgment was a little clouded, but I think you’re being awfully hard on her. Regardless of appearances and risks taken, SHE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG. NEITHER DID LEO.

Roghache you seem to think that when a mother takes care of herself and her needs she is necessarily sacrificing her child. But aren’t they BOTH benefiting when the mother grows and comes alive? In order for a child to be happy, sane, and well adjusted, shouldn’t they have a happy sane well adjusted mommy?

[deleted]

I completely disagree with your assessment. You sound like a Republican. Yes, she made a bad choice in continuing to make love with her boyfriend when Molly came in the room. She probably shouldn't have even let her sleep in the bed with both of them. She should have asked him to go to the couch if her daughter had to sleep with her at that point. But the beauty of films is that you can actually see the full situation and the humanity of a person that a witness in a jury box can never see. It doesn't surprise me that she lost custody of the child (even though there was no jury...just the judge in a hearing). But I don't think she was a bad mother. Her boyfriend did make a VERY unusual choice in letting her touch his penis, and I would have stopped seeing him if I were in Diane Keaton's shoes. But she found out too late, of course. I think once she did find out, she did basically stop seeing him, and was extremely conflicted. I don't think she put her needs before her child's in any way, shape or form. Her conversation with the psychologist, and his assessment on the witness stand as an expert witness, validated that. He said that by removing the child from this one very stable, powerful, loving relationship, that of her and her mother, would be detrimental to her. But the judge ruled in favor of the father anyway.

I loved this film, and thought it was beautiful. The world is almost never black and white, but a lot of people see it that way, as does the OP.

First let me say i have not seen this movie. I came to the site having read an interview with Nimoy, who will be 80 soon, being asked what work did he wish had more recognition by critics or the public. He said The Good Mother, so I came to see what the movie was about. I always try to read the comments as well.
I have been a psych nurse for a long time, and I think some of the questions addressed here need to be looked at from a slightly different angle. First off, the sex in the same bed as the child is not a great idea. That being said, children being in the same room as parents having sex has been the norm for much of humanity when we lived in 1 room huts all the way up to 1 room log cabins here in the US, or in the rest of the world now, such as yurts in Mongolia etc. Sex in context in a culture is not harmful. The same goes for nudity, and depends more on cultural expectations than anything else. I've never heard that naturists have a higher incidence of sexual problems or abuse of any sort than clothed folks. Again, in some families casual in house nudity is no big deal, in some it is.
Those two things being said I agree with lamont-harden- The guy should have known better. Yes, 5 year olds are curious, and no, seeing his penis will not cause her undue harm-again in context- but no touching. It would not have been a good thing even if she was his natural daughter, unless mom was right there to supervise. And he should have been more careful about being seen, as she is not his daughter. You answer questions as best can be understood by the child at the time about sex, sex organs, etc. No need to go into great detail, but tailor your answers to fit the child's understanding. People go into fits if they find their 5 year olds "playing doctor" i.e. expressing sexual curiosity. If that is all it is, then don't get excited. Again, use judgement and common sense.
THE BIG 800 pound Gorilla in the room is that sexual abuse is just as likely if not more likely to be perpetrated by the child's own father or other male relative as by a step parent or boyfriend.
The movie sounds like it addresses some very important issues, and maybe sometime I will get to see it.
People should not fear their governments.Governments should fear their people.

I agree I wouldn't let my children touch a body part and I breast fed all of my kids so I am not a prude. My husband would never let our kids touch his penis, so what would make a man who is not the father do that. The bath scene bothered me too, I felt that was inappropriate. My husband and I have had sex when the kids had fallen asleep in the bed but they were really young. I too felt that this relationship went way too fast, and she was more concerned with being told that she was wrong.