Well Acted, But Impossible To Feel Sympathy - Ladybird Ladybird (1995) Discussion

[–] storm_of_hatred 16 years ago

Even animals are able to display sympathy for other members of their species that are in need. Some animals have even been noted to display sympathy for other animals that doesn't even belong to the same species.

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

I'd have sympathy for her if she showed an ounce of awareness of the damage she's doing and showed a willingness to stop doing harm and make amends.

Throughout the movie, her attitude is "'I' need to have my kids with me", not "do my kids need to have a mother like me, or would they be better off with another family?".

She seems to have no sympathy with what her kids are going through, only with what she's going through. She chainsmokes around the kids and during her pregnancy. She goes back to an abusive man only because she needs a place to stay and gets beaten by that man again in front of the kids. She makes no attempt to become financially independent before getting pregnant again.

She is similar to a pedophile or serial killer who's terrible childhood are partly responsible for what they are. To me, they merit no sympathy til they face up and take responsibility for their actions.

She has gone from being a victim to being a perpetrator. It is her kids who deserve sympathy.

reply

[–] utpaul-1 16 years ago

I I must admit that after being an extreme left wing liberal all my life, i have to totally agree, with the sentiments of the last post. I have to work with the kinds of people in the film all day long and it is completely baffling why they think they have the inalienable right to have children without worry about how they are going to be brought up. It is also bewildering that Ken Loach does not show sympathy for social workers who hugely underpaid trying their best to "do the right thing" and are taken to the cleaners every time they do not take into care any child who gets subsequently abused/killed by their parents. He obviously has some kind of axe to grind of his own. I advise that Ken Loach become a social worker himself and when one of the kids in his care gets killed and their is an inquiry who he explains himself.

reply

[–] hathut 16 years ago

Wow

I am astonished by these replies! The message of this film has been completely lost on you. On the other hand i am not surprised at all, because you are merely emulating the attitudes of a great many people.
Who EVER has the right to take a child away from their parents? And so to answer this question we enter into reason. So what is the reasoning? To protect the child, to provide care and nuture and the right environment among many other things. The people to provide these very things are the maternal parents, first and foremost. This is beyond morality in fact - it is the way of nature. Now to go against nature is a very serious thing, but we are all grossly guilty of this. The implications of taking a child away from its parents are profound. To neglect a child of its mother's milk is surely one of the greatest crimes.

In looking at the way in which Social Services have dealt with this situation a number of points are raised:

- They have laid blame on the mother for her choice of partners, who have been violent and abusive. Is there no accountability to the partner for his own actions?

- In the removal of the two children born to maggie & jorge, they have based their judgements entirely upon past circumstances and have failed to paint a clear picture of the parent's current circumstances and environment which was fully suitable for the children.

- Maggie is obviously a greatly disturbed woman, but it is clear that this disturbance is a result of her past environment and history. Yet she continues to suffer for her past at the hands of the system.

The effects of the actions of Social Services on both the parents and the children is greatly destructive.

Now Ken Loach has provided a mirror for us and it is not a pretty picture, this film is of great importance and all films or art or conversation or anything for that matter that shows us as we really are is of the greatest importance.

Now the message of the film should be clearer to you. If you feel no sympathy for the people and their situation then look at yourself, nowhere else. But when we have a mirror infront of ourselves, we want to look away or we look at it with the distortion of mind, with our own particular reasoning or philosophy.

This is the first step and the last step.

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"- They have laid blame on the mother for her choice of partners, who have been violent and abusive. Is there no accountability to the partner for his own actions?"

Maggie went back to her abuser, the abuser didn't go to her.

"Maggie is obviously a greatly disturbed woman, but it is clear that this disturbance is a result of her past environment and history. Yet she continues to suffer for her past at the hands of the system."

Maggie continues to get pregnant even though she can't afford to support the children she has now. Who's going to pay for each new kid? She is obviously incompetent to be a mother. The kids were taken from her to protect the kids, not to punish Maggie. If you drive irresponsibly often enough, you'll lose your license to drive; not to puinsh you, but to protect other motorists.

Maggie continues to suffer at the hands of the system because she continues to be a danger to her kids.

reply

[–] hathut 16 years ago

"- They have laid blame on the mother for her choice of partners, who have been violent and abusive. Is there no accountability to the partner for his own actions?

Maggie went back to her abuser, the abuser didn't go to her. "

Well those are very human actions. Yet again you have failed to see that it is not HER who is violent towards her children, yet SHE is punished!

"Maggie continues to get pregnant even though she can't afford to support the children she has now. Who's going to pay for each new kid? She is obviously incompetent to be a mother. The kids were taken from her to protect the kids, not to punish Maggie. If you drive irresponsibly often enough, you'll lose your license to drive; not to puinsh you, but to protect other motorists.

Maggie continues to suffer at the hands of the system because she continues to be a danger to her kids. "

What danger is she to her kids? The state pays for her children as the UK is a welfare state, so she can afford to pay for them and provide them with a suitable environment.

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"What danger is she to her kids? The state pays for her children as the UK is a welfare state, so she can afford to pay for them and provide them with a suitable environment."

What danger is she to her kids? Even though she herself is not violent to her kids, she repeatedly goes back to her abuser, putting her kids into a bad environment. A good mother would not do that. She chain smokes while pregnant. Even her Chilean boyfriend comments on this. She's also emotionally unstable, constantly using foul language and verbally lashing out at social workers. Rather dumb to behave that way toward people from whom you want something.

Getting money from the State is supposed to be a temporary safety net until you can get back on your feet, not a career choice. Parents are supposed to set an example for their kids. Her kids will grow up thinking living in the projects off welfare, making babies with men who are dangerous or unable to help you financially is the way it's supposed to be. Instead of getting a good night's sleep, getting up early for a job that will put her back on her feet, make herself financially independent, she's going out to karaoke bars and hooking up with an illegal immigrant and getting pregnant with him.

Where do you think the UK gets money to pay for the welfare state? They get it from taxpayers. Those of us who pay taxes want to see the need for the welfare state to diminish, not increase.

reply

[–] jez-thepez 16 years ago

"she repeatedly goes back to her abuser, putting her kids into a bad environment."

Once! After that she goes to Jorge who is Paraguayan and Chilean!

We all agree that with her 4 first children she can be considered a bad mother.True
* She does leave her child alone, even though, who hasn't ever been left alone?? But let's say that makes her a bad mother...
* She chooses violent partners and goes back to them. She does that because the Asistants do not give her a feeling of Security or help.They take her to a hostile enviroment full of probably bad mothers (who do shout and curse at ther kids). Her only escape in her torn apart mind, is her late partner. Even still, mistake.

From then on, she does not do anything wrong in the mother sense of way. You speak of someone who has just lost 4 kids, the reason of her life nearly. The pain that causes isn't something to be taken lightly. Even with that she is able to find a stable partner who completely loves her and offers her a place to live together. I cannot see the difference between this mother (fu**ed up because of her situation) and other mothers who stay at home cleaning and stuff. They are not even medium class, but they still have the right and capability to have children. Or do you think anybody earning under a certain wage, should be banned to have children??
So from then on, she is on a clean run. But no, the goverment comes back and take her new child away from her and her partner. They were really bad parents right? What is bad about Jorge? I can't see any problems with this child. They love it, clothe it, feed it, and do not create a hostile enviroment. Until along comes a spider and takes it away because an old hag decides to poke her nose.
And you expect Maggie to smile and say she is sorry while her FIFTH kid is being "stolen" from her. She may not be Einstein but she know she hasn't got a chance and that she hasn't done anything to deserve this.
And now explain the reasoning for that and the second kid taken away from them. And why not take the next 3 they have, and manage to make a family with? Why not allow her to see her other children if she is capable of raising 3 other?

It's not all black and white

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"Or do you think anybody earning under a certain wage, should be banned to have children??"

No. However, if you are already getting aid from the government like welfare, subsidized rent, etc., then by definition, you're not earning enough to support yourself let alone another child. If you get pregnant, that means those have mananged their affairs responsibly (taxpayers) have to pay for your irresponsibility.

"What is bad about Jorge?" Jorge is in the country illegally. He's a nice guy, but his status introduces a huge level of instability to Maggie's already unstable life. When you are choosing a romantic partner, you're a fool if you pick someone who has out of control credit card debt, a gambling problem, substance abuse problem, anger management problems, etc. By the way, Jorge was a fool to have a relationship with anyone before fixing his immigration status, let alone an obviously unstable woman like Maggie.

"And you expect Maggie to smile and say she is sorry while her FIFTH kid is being "stolen" from her."

When you're dealing with the police, or any branch of government that has power over you, you never, ever behave in any way but as polite as possible. You think you're going to win them over with screaming insults?

"Why not allow her to see her other children if she is capable of raising 3 other?"

How about if Maggie works night and day to get out of the projects, get her own place, establish a history of earned income rather than welfare, and thus show she's worthy of custody.

I don't believe there's an unconditional 'right' to have children. You shouldn't have a child because it will fullfill you in some way, or because you need someone who'll love you and need you. Once you have a child, it should all be about the child, not about you. I have misgivings about someone in their 50s or 60s having kids. Is it fair to the kids to have parents who are too old to have the energy to play with them the way they need? Is it fair for a child to have parents that will begin to have age related medical needs as they become adolescents?

I feel the same way about anyone having a child until they own their own home.

Bottom line; if you have a child while taking some form of government assistance, what you're saying is, " I'll do as I please and force others to pay for it."

reply

[–] isabelle-sutton 16 years ago

Hi everyone,

I am very shocked by some of these messages, especially those of louis-king.
It is easy as an outsider to come along and judge Maggie as a "bad mother". I totally disagree with this.
No one ever mentiones Maggie's childhood. I mean, for you (louis-king), it might seem crazy and irresponsible to run back to this man who beats her up, to keep wanting more kids, to shout and swear at social workers.
But try and put yourself in Maggie's place. All she has known is suffering and sexual abuse from a very young age. Her children are obviously the only ray of light in her life. And maybe the reason why she keeps having children is because social services keep taking them away. She is completely desperate yet she keeps trying and I find it unbelievable that one cannot feel sorry for the woman!

Yes, she might not be doing things the "right" way. But how could she after all she's been through. At least she's trying! Jorge is a great guy, and although he can't always deal with her, he remains a positive influence. So for the judge and social workers to name HIM as part of her instability is insane.
Maggie is merely a victim here. She's a victim of her father, and of society in general. Take that lousy neighbour of hers, who blatantly lies in court, and makes up stories!

If you are familiar with Loach's work you will know that he never portrays "perfect people" (that's why I have a problem with this "good/bad mother" thing.) He shows people who are victims of the society they live in, who are broken down, but who NEVER give up. And I think you can see all of this in Maggie. Give the woman a break, after everything she's gone through!

Isabelle

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"But try and put yourself in Maggie's place. All she has known is suffering and sexual abuse from a very young age.
Maggie is merely a victim here."

Maggie is a 'victim' who will create more victims, just like her father created her.

Have you considered that Maggie's children will grow up to be like her if they are raised in an abusive environment, by a chain-smoking mother with anger management problems? Obviously Maggie hasn't considered this or doesn't care.

One definition of insanity is continuing the same behavior and expecting different results.

"Jorge is a great guy"

Jorge is in the country illegally. Regardless of whether or not this is just, the fact is, being illegal means that his job prospects are limited and he could be deported at any time. I consider that to be an unstable situation. Maggie should not be having children with him until his immigration status is settled so that he can stay in the country legally. You do agree with that don't you?

Lastly, Maggie is already getting government aid which taxpayers are forced to pay for. Do we place no restrictions on the Maggies of the world? If we continue to subsidizes loser behavior, we'll get more of it, requiring more tax dollars.

If I'm an alcoholic, who can't or won't stop drinking, then I stop making payment on my home, run the risk of foreclosure. Should the government take some of your money and give it to my bank so I don't lose my house without insisting that I stop drinking and get back on my feet?

After all, alcoholism's a disease, it's not my fault! I'm a victim!

reply

[–] jez-thepez 16 years ago

i have to say i don't really understand your point. After the first bunch of children is taken, I cannot see any "bad mother" habits you mention. Nothing thousands of other mothers might not do worse.
Her stability lies with her children, so your solution is take those away so she can be a much better person and mother!! As you cannot deny those are the results. Correct?Isn't she emotionally much better after they take her kids? Would you stand still and give cakes and biscuits to someone who decides to take you 5th child from you? hipocrit.

And I don't see her drink in front of her kids, or lose her nerves. You never say anything about that. You prejudge and say that her kids are going to grow up like her. All i can see she gives her children is love. You only comment on her behaviour when under situations like having her kin taken away from her!! I do have I am in favour of taking some children from there parents, but in this case I see many mistakes.

You keep on going about her welfare. So according to you anybody who hasn't got a job should be banned from having children? Just look around you boyo. Check how much "low class *beep* that do not work and have children" there is. So you decide from your extremely CORRECT and obnoxious point of view that these people should not have children at all. Your reasons are stability. You draw that line with more precision than picasso! Ok, so all those parents that get the boot from a factory (that already pays them *beep* in a *beep* neighbourhood) should have their children taken away as they are instable economically.My parents had to eat baked beans on toast for me to have proper food and be able to come to spain to see my family. They slept on the floor and they had unstable jobs. They loved me like hell! My mum smoked dope and sometimes goes out with me until 9am. Never ever ever have I doubted them. They have given me everything.I have no anger problems and no mental or physical sicknesses.As much as I've seen this woman give her children.

I cannot see an unstable atmosphere to raise children, apart from fighting the authorities for her children and her violent partner which she has already left. So he gets deported, so they lose a parent?better than losing 2 for no reason at all. Because as you can see she raises 3 herself in that loathing condition you seem to dislike. Many children live in worse situations and the authorities know about them. Everybody deserved a 2nd chance. Even the children

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"I cannot see any "bad mother" habits you mention."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When she becomes pregnant with Jorge, she's still chain smoking; in fact, Jorge mentions it to her.

If you're already on Welfare or in subsidized housing, that means you're unable to support yourself with whatever income you're getting. Why would you then choose to have more kids? Will that help you get off Welfare or into your own apartment? Getting pregnant again just puts you deeper into a hole. Is that being a good responsible mother?

Since you can't support the new kids coming along, that means you're going to need even more money from the government. The government doesn't have any money of their own; they get money from taxpayers. I live in the USA; we're facing a recession. They say when the US sneezes, the rest of the World gets a cold. If you're living in the UK, the recession may come to you as well. Those of us who own our own homes and earn enough income to be able to pay taxes have no more money to give to the Maggies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So according to you anybody who hasn't got a job should be banned from having children?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not banned, just not given any more money. If you don't have a job, you shouldn't get pregnant. A child is a huge, 18 year financial commitment.

Lets say I lose my job. I want to remodel my kitchen. I need a loan to do that. Well, the bank's not going to give me a loan if I don't have a job, so the kitchen will just have to wait until I can qualify for that loan. What if I never ever qualify for that loan? Then I don't get to remodel my kitchen.
Otherwise, if the bank writes enough loans that don't get repaid, they'll go out of business. Which is what is now happening in the good old USA.

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"You only comment on her behaviour when under situations like having her kin taken away from her!!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also wanted to respond to this comment.

It's never a good idea to lose your temper, but least of all toward someone who can hurt or help you. If you get stopped by the police for speeding, does it do any good to scream at the police even if you think he's mistaken? She screams at Jorge, social workers, the judge.

reply

[–] jez-thepez 16 years ago

you compare a speeding ticket to 6 children being taken away? do you realise how you compare?
do you realise it's not just a coincidence that you speak from commodity of you house and car?
Life is a struggle. And some people will need more money from taxpayers (like me) and some have to give.
I can't see her abusing of welfare. I see her being abused though...

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"you compare a speeding ticket to 6 children being taken away? do you realise how you compare?"

I was giving an example, not making a comparison. So now you tell me, when is it a good idea to lose your temper and scream at someone? Please don't tell me that sometimes you can't help it and lose control. If you lose control in front of the authorities, you've just proven to them that you're unstable. Remember that the autorities have to cover their asses. If they'd ignored Maggie's outburst, given her custody of the kids, and then something terrible happened, they would have to answer why they gave her custody despite clear evidence that she was unstable.

"do you realise it's not just a coincidence that you speak from commodity of you house and car?"

I was a renter for many years. I lived in 2 family homes for years and the landlord usually lived in the other apartment. I waited til I owned my own home before having a child and getting a dog. The ugly truth is that many landlord won't rent to a couple with a baby or a small child and most lanlords wont even talk to you if you have a dog. And the one who do, complain about the noise and wear & tear kids and dogs make. It's a lot easier to save up for a home if you don't have a child. Also, I didn't want to be subject to someone raisng my rent or the owner selling the house out from under me and the new buyer wanting my apartment. Now I'm a homeowner and can do as I please.

"Life is a struggle. And some people will need more money from taxpayers (like me) and some have to give.
I can't see her abusing of welfare. I see her being abused though..."

Other peoples needs are not an unlimited blank check on my earnings. Those who get help from the government (taxpayers) also have an obligation to do whatever it takes to get off the public dole. Success doesn't happen. You've got to plan & work for it, adopt behaviors that will help you get there. If, for example, you like to hang out with friends til late at night, you'll have to give that up. Get up at 6 AM some time and you'll be astounded at the crowds of people on their way to work at that ungodly hour.

Maggie abuses welfare by getting pregnant again with a man who's in the country illegally rather than focusing on doing whatever will make the social workers happy and comfortable with giving her custody.

reply

[–] jez-thepez 16 years ago

you seem to forget she didn't have a chance to get custody. They were taken with no option to appeal or anything.
In cold, it's very easy to critise someone who loses their temper. Also i seem to find disgusting the idea that the reason you give for them to take the children aways, is that they cover up their arses?

reply

[–] louis-king 16 years ago

"Also i seem to find disgusting the idea that the reason you give for them to take the children aways, is that they cover up their arses?"

I live in Massachusetts. This was a well known case not too long ago. I'm taking this from the Boston Globe.

"By John C. Drake
Globe Staff / December 25, 2007

The Department of Social Services is defending its decision to return an infant girl to her mother, a 37-year-old Peabody woman who was arrested and charged with murder Friday in the 8-month-old's death."

Now, how would you like to be the DSS worker who signed off on this case? Cover up their 'arses'? You're damn right. If I was a social worker reading this story, I cover my 'arse', dot every i, cross every t with every single case I was involved with.

reply

[–] jez-thepez 16 years ago

so that way she has covered her arse...feels much better and leaves a mother without a kid. Many of these mothers cannot take it and commit suicide. There are examples both ways.
So your point here is let's do it all to cover up arses... If someone is a suspect of anything. It's always better to *beep* up their lives, maybe throw them in prison. What is the worse that can happen? That they are innocent? Well...I was just covering up my arse.

Cold arses will make a better world

reply

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

Louis King, let me ask you a question:

If someone took your beloved children away from you, with the chance that you NEVER EVER see them again, how would you react? Would you smile and say: "You're welcome! Have your share."

**********
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!

reply

[–] RainyNightHouse 15 years ago

Wow Louis-king you'd make a great fascist!

reply

[–] johnbaverstock 13 years ago

Comming into this years later...I hope you've died, we don't need your facist way of thinking in this country thanks.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

But try and put yourself in Maggie's place. All she has known is suffering and sexual abuse from a very young age. Her children are obviously the only ray of light in her life. And maybe the reason why she keeps having children is because social services keep taking them away.

How many children does she need to feel this happiness? Doesn't she have FOUR when they're taken away after the fire? If she had one, or maybe two ("an heir and a spare"), and stopped there to concentrate on them, and the solution of happiness you're saying they give her, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

(It's possible I'm getting the plot wrong, though.)

.

reply

[–] seagull_2006 15 years ago

To quote you '....yet SHE is punished.....'
I have to disagree with you there. The ones who were truly punished here all along (and I wonder indeed, as this is is a true story, how they are faring now) were her children, and the abysmal start they were given in life. I absolutely agree with Social Services for taking away the first four children, for she clearly was a dangerous mother, in spite of her love for them.
However,I do think the way they took the others away without a second thought for the babie's dad, who was obvioulsy loving and caring, was too hasty. Each case should be seen seperatley.

reply

[–] felice-witch-1 9 years ago

YES these are human actions, human actions of a traumatised person, but the children should not have to suffer for them! I am known to be a person of extreme compassion, and I deeply truly feel compassion for Maggie and for what she has suffered and her addictions (to bad men and smoking and everything else) but she should NOT be in charge of children!!!! I cannot believe you can't see that. It's the same as my mother - she was abused as a child which is awful. But then she was abusive to me. And I didn't deserve that either!! And I wish social workers had taken me away.

I do feel sympathy for Maggie but I agree that she should not be caring for children as she is too unstable. The benefits/money aspect I care for less, as yes it does show a certain level of immaturity/not thinking things through that she keeps having children but I would not want to say those children should not have had a life because of money. And to whoever said poor tax payer, a fraction of tax goes to benefits so I wouldn't worry too much.

I mean, when she's told she will lose her children unless she goes to that refuge place, all she talks about is that she needs her son. And then, when she gets there, because a woman is swearing and shouting she walks off and goes to her ex who shouts, swears AND beats her up????? WHAT THE HELL??? I think that's so stupid and shows misplaced pride. URGH.

Also I do agree that social workers are sometimes so horrifically patronising and do not help a situation.

To me this film just shows that everything and everyone are vile, except for the children. The mother, the social workers are inept, the refuges are disgusting (maybe some taxpayers money should be invested into better places!!). It's just all vile.

reply

[–] powerfulupton 16 years ago

Its not the right of social workers to take children away from their mothers. Basically i am about sick of these social workers in england there just a bunch of do-goody busy bodies who think the right thing is to wrench children away from their families. Im not saying kids should left in a situation like in the film where they were at harm at the start of the movie obviously thats not right for anyone but the social services in general still to this day tend to tar a person with the same brush through their lives. The film was good and i think how ken loach described the social services was right, these people shouldent have the god given right to just take kids away from their families.

reply

[–] bogwart-1 16 years ago

It is absolutely the right - and the duty - of social services to remove children from a dangerous environment.

It is facile and stupid of you to suggest that they are "just a bunch of do-goody busy bodies who think the right thing is to wrench children away from their families". There have been several cases where children were left in potentially dangerous homes and subsequently died. Then, people doubtless just like you were slagging off the social services for not taking the children out of danger. You want it all ways, and these are not black and white situations. It's always someone else's fault.

It is also counterproductive to assert that it wasn't Maggie's fault because she had an abusive upbringing. Well, probably Simon did too, and probably so did the shiftless fathers of all her other children. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions, and especially so where children are concerned. Political correctness and an excess of socialist zeal conspired in the 1970s and 1980s to discourage people from attempting to deal with their own problems, and to encourage them instead to become part of a victim culture.

Social services don't have *any* god-given rights; they have duties which are laid down by law. Perhaps if you were more familiar with all aspects of their jobs you wouldn't feel the same degree of righteous indignation on behalf of a feckless woman who plainly was not able to raise her children by herself. If you feel there is something wrong with the way these things are run then you do have the option of challenging them, via local and national government.

The welfare state was instituted as a safety net to look after people and families who for whatever reason were unable to cope for themselves. It should not be treated as a licence to knock out what - nine children? - one after the other and have the state - i.e. us - pick up the bill. What was wrong with this woman that she felt she could bang them out and not be concerned with the children themselves? It is not an adequate response to say "she loved them". If you take on the responsibility of another life, whether it is that of a human child or a hamster, that life is in your hands. Her reckless behaviour was a good incentive for more people to say that people like her should be forcibly sterilised.

It would be interesting to revisit this family now, fourteen years after the film was made, and to see what happened to the family. I would take large odds that they are not still together.

reply

[–] seagull_2006 15 years ago

Oh yes? How do you feel about 'Baby P'then who was tortured and murdered at home (which happened here in UK about 2 weeks ago). Social workers are getting tons of abuse now for NOT taking a child away - social workers can never do right can they?

reply

[–] Rubface 15 years ago

Maybe neutering the working class will solve the problem?

reply

[–] Xcalat3 16 years ago

have to agree with you

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

[–] WheresYourMamaGone 16 years ago

Perhaps I am the only person who felt sympathy and saw logic on both sides? Maggie being the protagonist and clearly a woman who adored her children, it was almost impossible not to feel sympathy with her, as no doubt it was intended. On the other hand, I also felt a degree of understanding towards some of the people on the "other side". I don't think Ken Loach intended them to be boo-hiss villains, he's far too subtle for that, just as life is far too complex for such a black-and-white dynamic. The social workers as individual people were acting on behalf of the authorities and were under strict instruction to do what they did, and would have to go home at night and live with having torn apart families on behalf of their employers. I personally felt very sorry for the young lad who had to take away Zoe (Maggie and Jorge's first baby) and put up with being attacked by Maggie twice. He looked upset and troubled by the whole proceedings.

There are decent points being made in this discussion on both sides, but I feel that some people are missing the subtleties. You can't put black-and-white blanket moral evaluations on this sort of thing.

reply

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

Wheresyourmama: I have no problems understanding the people from the social office, I can to a certain degree accept their actions.
What I don't like is those who claim Maggies behavior towards them to be incomprhensible, stupid and wrong.

**********
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!

reply

[–] WheresYourMamaGone 16 years ago

I don't like it either. Wrong - perhaps. But incomprehensible and stupid? They were the actions of a desperate woman who wasn't thinking rationally, understandably. I found it very difficult not to empathise with Maggie.

Actually, slightly off the topic but one thing I didn't like was the authorities sending round men who looked like semi-adolescent to deal with the case. The one mentioned earlier who had to take Maggie and Jorge's first baby, and also the lad they sent round shortly beforehand who peeped through the letterbox, surely it's not fair or wise to put anybody in that position? I would have thought a matronly woman would be best for that sort of job, i.e. dealing with a woman having her children taken away, not some lad not long out of the sixth form. I can't put my finger on the moral reason for that, it just somehow felt wrong to me, for all parties. Perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned.

I can't agree with louis-king that it's impossible to feel sorry for Maggie, but I do agree that people don't have the inalienable right to reproduce without a thought to the consequences, and in honesty Maggie kept on and on putting her children in danger. She clearly loved her children but she wasn't a good mother and I felt more sympathy should have been portrayed/encouraged towards the social workers, who (as utpaul said) work for a pittance for what they believe is right and get nothing but trouble as a result.

reply

[–] bing148 15 years ago

Maggie clearly loved her children and I felt badly for her, but she has only herself to blame, she continually put her kids in dangerous situations, couldn't support them yet kept having them and refused to take steps to better herself and get ready to be a positive parent. She refused to cooperate with a system that was looking out for her childrens interests. Being with their mother isn't always the best thing for children, being in a safe, healthy environment is in their best interests, if that can be with the biological parents, that's best, if not, then something else has to be done. Her kids were in danger, period. She continued to put her kids in dangerous situations and never worried about how it effected them but only about how it effected her.

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

For starters she shouldn't have left her kids alone to go singing at a bar or whatever that place was, woman didn't even leave them with a babysiter. Then she returns to her abusive husband or whatever he was only to get her ass beaten again in front of her kids so soon after he helps her take the kids and escape the social worker. Then she refuses to try and work with the social workers to getting her kids back, instead she plays paranoid and accues them of turning her children against her.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

For starters she shouldn't have left her kids alone to go singing at a bar or whatever that place was, woman didn't even leave them with a babysiter. Then she returns to her abusive husband or whatever he was only to get her ass beaten again in front of her kids so soon after he helps her take the kids and escape the social worker. Then she refuses to try and work with the social workers to getting her kids back, instead she plays paranoid and accues them of turning her children against her.

What I keep seeing in Maggie is a lack of intelligence and foresight. And this gets very awkward, because you can't force people to be smarter or think things through...and it's not illegal to be dim-witted.

But the very fact that she cannot be civil to the social workers and the other legal professionals involved in her case IN HER BEST INTERESTS (she starts uncontrollably screaming accusations in court!) shows that she lacks basic judgement. And again, this is a hard issue to deal with, but it could be argued that Maggie does not have enough basic intelligence to provide a sound home for her kids.

I don't think there's any clean solution to Maggie's situation (which is probably the overall message of the film, dismaying as that message may be.)

.

reply

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

..you can't force people to be smarter or think things through...and it's not illegal to be dim-witted......it could be argued that Maggie does not have enough basic intelligence to provide a sound home for her kids....I don't think there's any clean solution to Maggie's situation
_____________
As harsh and judgemental as this may sound, women like Maggie, should not be breeding. They have no brains—even if education was available to them—are bitter, feel self-entitled, spiritually impoverished and short-sighted. They have no sense of self-awareness or self-worth and are a dredge\burden on society. The useless men they get with, are just as dense and stupid and the 'animalistic' sex they have with each other, they see as a 'desperate' form of love and need.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

It became apparent Maggie was prone to find herself involved with abusers. The children's safety came first.
________
As much as we may admonish and criticize some aspects of government services and authorities, aspects need also be acknowledged, as acting in the best interests of those that have little or no voice. It becomes a 'Benevolent State', in this respect.

reply

[–] Waiting2BShocked 12 years ago

Oh yeah no doubt you'd be saying that as a seriously injured, abused or even killed child too.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]