MovieChat Forums > Secrets & Lies (1997) Discussion > There is a mistake being made here

There is a mistake being made here

posted 16 years ago by Arthur_Desmond
31 replies | jump to latest

Hortense already had a family; her adoptive parents loved her, gave her a good upbringing and made her, or at least collaborated into making her, the successful woman she is at the beginning of the movie. Those were her real parents.

Why would she want to establish contact with a natural mother who didn't want her? And even more: why would she want to lengthen that contact later on, after meeting her? Because if one thing is lacking in this movie's latter half, is the hint at the possibility of making this into a "family"; Hortense and Cynthia will never be mother and daughter -- not as Roxanne and Cynthia are, not even remotely close. Was Hortense's ennui and feeling of vital mediocrity so accentuated, that she needed to cling to her biological origins even if that meant feeling out of place and at times even rejected, or at least looked at with disbelief? Do biological origins matter so much? Is this the morale of the movie?

This is a weak character, surrounded by even weaker (and in some cases neurotic) characters and I don't understand why Mike Leigh needs to confuse naturalism with monothematic displays of weakness and neurosis when he is clearly intelligent enough to tell the difference between one thing and the other. He could be the thinking man's Ken Loach, and yet he consistently falls into the same traps and condescends on working class daily life in much the same way. And here there isn't even a sympathetic antihero to root for, à la David Thewlis.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

I'm not saying she is a materialistic, cold or calculating person. I just say she has a rather low self esteem in that she:
- looks for a natural mother who left her and didn't want to resume any contact with her (remember it is Hortense who goes out to find Cynthia, not the other way around);
- once met with disbelief, distance, coldness and the closest thing to contempt, she still needs to make her point through -- wherever it may take. After seeing how Cynthia reacts when Hortense appears and presents herself at their meeting point, I'd just walk out on her if I were Hortense. Without even saying goodbye.
- maintains that contact even after seeing that there is virtually no connection between her and her natural family. I'm not speaking of race, class or anything else. I'm speaking of feelings. There are and there will be no feelings other than, possibly, friendship. This is a deeply flawed family nucleus that is being created at the end of the movie. Hortense and Cynthia will never be a daughter and a mother. That takes time and common experiences, both good and bad (which is precisely what distinguishes a family from a mere boarding house).

And for the record, being weak doesn't mean being a bad person.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

Hortense is looking for a family, not for a set of friends. She already has friends, the movie makes it clear earlier on. She wants to know her origins, and once they are revealed to her in all their crudeness (even leaving it open to the possibility of herself being a product of a rape or a drunken one-night stand) she still needs them.

Discarding them once they are revealed would seem cold and dehumanized to you, but at least it would mean she had that space in her life (the one labeled "family" with big letters) filled in. That would be realistic. THAT would be social realism. And THAT would be painting complex characters in a complex setting, rather than bidimensional cartoons come out of a Ken Loach or a John Sayles flick. Maybe it wouldn't be heroic (which is probably what you're concerned with), but heroism is a scarce thing to meet in daily life, even if it plays a fundamental part in these proletarian vanilla skies so dear to some British and American directors, who like to pretend they're being naturalistic when in fact they're being simplistic to the point of insulting the audience.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

Well I guess I didn't understand the exact nature of mankind; evolution doesn't come without its price. We're not reproducing by spores anymore, and tend to acknowledge kinship in a way that may even be stable. I just don't know what I was thinking about. I was ignoring the basic entity which defines us as a unique species: the notion of a family.

So that's the detail I was missing, after all, in order to understand Leigh's movie. I'll watch it again, see if I grasp Hortense's plight in all its intensity.

[–] xine6500 16 years ago

Yes, regardless of how wealthy and loved someone may be by his or her adoptive parents, sometimes people want to know what kind of people they descend from. I think it is perfectly natural.

My mom was always interested in her birthparents but just never put the time into finding them. When I grew up I really wanted to know who her birthparents were and tracked them down. We actually saw this movie a year or so before finding the birthparents so it really added to our experience of the movie to see another person finding their roots.

I am so glad I tracked them down. It answered a lot of questions for my mom and for me. It also helped us see that nature and nurture are both important.

Maybe if you haven't been adopted you might not understand the movie.

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

I agree with xine. And I'm not adopted.

But as Hortence says to the woman at the social office; no one could replace her adoptive parents. New parents was not what she was looking for. She knew her adoptive parents gave her anything she needed.

BUT she wanted to know her heritage, where she came frome, and why she was adopted. She just wanted to see her natural mother. Hortence made that clear too. After they had met, Hortence didn't take contact again. Cynthia did. And since Cynthia called back, Hortence thought it would be nice to get to know her better. But she did not look for a replacement for her adoptive mother.

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

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

Yes, regardless of how wealthy and loved someone may be by his or her adoptive parents, sometimes people want to know what kind of people they descend from. I think it is perfectly natural.

Yes, so did she. And when she had the chance to meet her natural mother, she got looked down upon (actually, she wasn't really looked at in the first place) as if she were some pariah, some subservient character come out of the street.

I'm not questioning Hortense's first motivation -- which would probably be mine as well. All I'm saying is that her later behavior is indicative of a very low self-esteem, if not outright masochistic.

Why does a black female character have to cling to a nearly heroic patience, as well as an unnecessarily comprehensive attitude towards situations which are neither fair nor to her fault, in order to become morally acceptable to a larger public? Am I the only one who believes this premise is utterly patronizing?

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

Why does a black female character have to cling to a nearly heroic patience, as well as an unnecessarily comprehensive attitude towards situations which are neither fair nor to her fault, in order to become morally acceptable to a larger public? Am I the only one who believes this premise is utterly patronizing?

What are you saying? That she has low self-esteem? And the reason is because she's black? Honestly!! You're way off here! She is the resourceful and strong character in this film. The reason she doesn't speak up for herself during the dinner party is because she understands it is a shock for her family (espessially Roxanne) that she is who she is. She's an intelligent woman, she knows better than to argue.

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

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

What are you saying? That she has low self-esteem? And the reason is because she's black?

You know, when separate phrases are included in separate paragraphs, nine out of ten times it is a wise thing not to assume a cause/effect relation between them beforehand.

I think she has low self-esteem because she needs to maintain her (newfound) bond to her natural mother even despite the fact that
a) the latter and the people in her environment are, sociologically, losers, whereas Hortense isn't;
b) she was given into adoption by a mother who could actually raise her (e.g. Roxanne);
c) she is received with disbelief, and probably even contempt, even after telling her natural mother who she is.
I think that reflects low self-esteem, no matter what color your skin is.

Now comes the color thing. I implied such a low self-esteem (which I repeat, is an intrinsic quality regardless of race) is assumed on a black character as obvious and natural. Blacks are routinely portrayed in English-speaking films as immature, idiotic or as simply flawed beyond the flaws you normally assume in non-black protagonists. And apparently Mike Leigh let his own prejudices shine through. Would you envision Gwyneth Paltrow in Hortense's role? Answer me honestly. I know I'm no racist. Are you sure this is your case?

I said it once and I say it again. Hortense had a mother, and a father: her adoptive parents. The rest is utter silliness passing as social progressivism. The Fabian dream of a covert misanthrope. And I think it is about time that we all realize it.

[–] jjtoday2001 16 years ago

Hortense's adoptive mother has just died (the film opens at the funeral IIRC), and there is no reference to her father, who apparently is also dead.

With both her adoptive parents gone, she is not rejecting them in favor of accepting Cynthia as her mother.

Hortense is portrayed as being the most intelligent person in the film, by far (although Maurice is close). I don't think she is portrayed as having low self-esteem at all. Cynthia and Roxanne, definitely. Monica, to some extent, yes. Maurice, briefly.

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

And to answer your question, Sergi; yes, I could picture Gwyneth Paltrow in this role. Race has nothing to do with it. You are creating victims where there are none.

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

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

And to answer your question, Sergi; yes, I could picture Gwyneth Paltrow in this role. Race has nothing to do with it. You are creating victims where there are none.

Well, I would picture her there as well, but hardly as a role of the sort she usually portrays (strong, independent, rather smart...). That's what I'm talking about.

It all sums up to credibility. You find this movie, with its premise, believable. I, on the contrary, find it highly implausible. It all depends on what Leigh wanted it to be. The rest of his filmography looks quite believable and naturalistic to me. Assuming this was directed by Winterbottom (the guy who pretended us to believe that Juliet Aubrey would stay with a sclerotic Robert Carlyle until his death, no matter what) I'd accept a movie like this, but coming from someone with his feet as firmly on the ground as to direct "Naked", I'd rather see this as a disappointment.

Maybe I was expecting too much from the man.

[–] JamBap 16 years ago

I think Sergi that the disparity you feel is because you are basing Hortense's decision to seek out her genetic mother as an attempt to belong to something. I don't think that's the case at all. She is single, successful and strong enough to face the truth at all costs, she's not even overly dependent on her close friends. The human condition is one that needs to know and understand its origins. Hortense didn't seek out and forge a relationship with her genetic mother because she was trying to replace her adopted family, but because whether she liked it or not, she was biologically connected with her and that counts for a lot. The time she sought out with Cynthia would have been to try to understand herself better and reconcile whatever incongruant and/or misunderstood elements that existed in her own life. It's a very common need among adopted children to find their genetic parents to reconcile their own identity. Also keep in mind that the time we see Hortense spending with her newfound biological mother represents merely the initial period of this discovery, not a lifelong union. I think that if Hortense got on well with her genetic family then probably a longlasting close relationship would result. If they didn't then it would have receeded to the usual occasional social reunions that become typical in families that only get on so well with each other. However I personally think that the purging of the family's secrets and lies in the climactic penultimate scene provided a lesson and forged a bond that would keep them close for the rest of their lives, as is indicated in Roxanne's determination to be honest in the final scene.

So no, I don't see Hortense as weak, but it's her strength and honesty that ultimately saves the family and reconciles her with her own obscure past.

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

You're speaking of Hortense's need for at least a primary phase in relations with her genetic family. What I'm saying is that, after a quick glance, not even that first phase was necessary to her unless she had issues of her own. The fact she was adopted may have been one of these issues, but that is something which, I guess, all adopted children have to deal with, so that alone doesn't justify Hortense's behavior.

Concerning the other reason you give for her behavior, I must say there is an undercurrent of genetic determinism in your post and I think this is very disputable, both at a theoretical and at an empirical level. I think nobody is responsible for their own ancestor's behavioral traits -- not without a contact, whether direct or indirect, with them. There are no identities to reconcile, no origins to understand, and no incongruent elements other than the fact that Hortense was not her foster parents' biological child. She was separated at birth from a biological mother who didn't even look at her; hence, years later none of them knew the ulterior evolution, the upbringing, the cultural background or even the skin color of the other. And needless to say, none of them is directly accountable for the other's personal struggles; the fact there was an adoption in between may be indeed accountable, but these two women, in and of themselves, aren't.

From my viewpoint, this movie is a very well-meaning, bien-pensant approach to human relations: fine. But perhaps we could have expected something else from Leigh, at least looking at Naked. I'm not saying this is a bad movie with no redeeming qualities; all I'm saying is that I don't buy its premise and I was disappointed.

[–] perorewen 16 years ago

I concur with JamBap.

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

[–] Arthur_Desmond 16 years ago

Hortense is portrayed as being the most intelligent person in the film, by far (although Maurice is close). I don't think she is portrayed as having low self-esteem at all. Cynthia and Roxanne, definitely. Monica, to some extent, yes. Maurice, briefly.

She is portrayed as the most reflexive person, I'll grant that; but all that self-insight and all that thoughtfulness have no outcome other than conclusion that she needs to cling to her newfound biological family, even when it is obvious that she is like oil and water with them.

If I were as thoughtful and cerebral as Hortense I think my conclusions would be more practical and less of a waste of time -- and I don't consider myself especially intelligent nor with a very high self esteem...

[–] rdeschene 14 years ago

Strange. Of all the characters in the film, Hortense is the last one I would associate with low self-esteem. As Maurice says, she was strong enough to risk seeking out the truth about her past, even knowing that the truth might betray her. (And, at the outset, it seemed that might be the case.) Maurice said he felt a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for her, and so do I. She was the strongest character in the film, and the one who was the catalyst for change for the better for all of them . . . including herself. Hortense's presence in their lives forced them all to look in the mirror and confront the truth about themselves and one another.

I think Hortense realized that in her organized, carefully constructed world, there was something missing. Maybe it grew out of her own awareness of having been adopted. I mentioned it in another reply that a woman I know has expressed that same feeling. Like Hortense, she had a wonderful life growing up in her adoptive family, yet still always felt that there was something missing. She can't pinpoint exactly what it is. She likens it to a missing bond that she felt children in other families had, but not her. Maybe it's nothing more than a misplaced perception. And yes, it's irrational; most emotions are. But it's still there, and is a common theme I hear from children who are adopted (and also, increasingly, children of sperm donors). If this yearning were not so universal, then I could see your complaint. But it is. It doesn't mean that every adopted child will feel this way, but so many do that I don't see the point of complaining about it being part of Hortense's character.

[–] Arthur_Desmond 14 years ago

Had her biological family been lumpen/working class AND black, there wouldn't be a movie at all. It's not only that she needs a biological family to relate to, it's that she's ultimately fascinated (and this fascination is expected from the audience as well) by the fact that they are white British, which makes her half white as well, however unfortunate the casting of this film was. The whole movie plays on the premise that a family of chavs can interact on equal grounds with an educated, upwardly mobile young woman.

Because she's black.

The same movie, with colors reversed (i.e. on the assumption that the protagonist were a Mediterranean-looking white and her biological maternal family was black) would have played on paternalism and humorous situations. Blacks being blacks, where they belong, no political redemptorism and no sense of social misplacement. With lots of Caribbean-themed music and funny misunderstandings. Hell, I'm almost sure the film would have been a comedy to start with. A silly white comedy (no pun intended) without even allowing a tinge of healthy cynicism. I do concede that Leigh wouldn't have made such a movie, but someone would have.

In this case, however, the "working-class" family is portrayed according to the Ken Loach school of social condescension: flawed yet honorable, the victims of a political situation gone awry. Poor, undeserving victims who would fare far better in a fair society because they're not where they belong. Yet they hold their candle against the more educated black girl and there's even an eloquent speech by the Spall character which seems completely out of place for the character.

[–] katycarlson 16 years ago

She wanted to find her and meet her, it's only natural isn't it. My husband is adopted, he has a great adoptive family, big and loving. He still wanted to know the woman who gave birth to him, and the father who fathered him. He talked to the woman, it was a great first talk on the phone, and thats all it's ever been. He's never seen her, but I don't doubt he'd love to look her in the eye and know what she looks like, and he's always wanted to know who his birth father was as well, and meet him. Who knows if it'll ever happen, but it's a want that alot of adopted children do want. We plan to adopt someday, and when the time comes, that child will probably want to find their mother and father as well.

Katy

In order to find his equal, an Irishman is *forced* to talk to God. ~~ Braveheart

[–] JaneSchmo 15 years ago

It's good for adoptive children to KNOW where they came from. Have the continuity of "I have my grandmother's eyes" and "I have my mom's talent in drawing".

No, I don't think they'll ever have the relationship of mother and daughter. Never. They have a friendship, though.

stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com

stopsylvia.com

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Arthur_Desmond 15 years ago

Her family was her adoptive family. Cynthia was just her biological mother, who didn't even dare to look at her when she was born.

Yes, I know I've got my mother's eyes, etc and even though I wasn't adopted I can imagine the curiosity experienced by those who are to know where their external traits come from. But a person is what he/she builds him/herself into. In other words: by their 40th birthday, people have not their fathers' or mothers' face but that which they deserve.

Assuming the contrary is unwittingly giving up to a subtle form of biological racism and I think it's about time this is realized by everyone.

[–] lexyladyjax 11 years ago

Her family was her adoptive family. Cynthia was just her biological mother, who didn't even dare to look at her when she was born.

Yes, I know I've got my mother's eyes, etc and even though I wasn't adopted I can imagine the curiosity experienced by those who are to know where their external traits come from. But a person is what he/she builds him/herself into. In other words: by their 40th birthday, people have not their fathers' or mothers' face but that which they deserve.

Assuming the contrary is unwittingly giving up to a subtle form of biological racism and I think it's about time this is realized by everyone.

Just her biological mother? Without Cynthia there would be no Hortense. You're missing something very important. If Hortense needed a kidney or bone marrow, Cynthia would be the go-to person, along with the rest of her genetic family. Why do you people always forget that?

Mr Desmond, you may know that you have your mother's eyes. We who are adopted know zero about those things. Most of us don't even have any family medical history. When we find ourselves as parents of children with serious medical issues, we're in real trouble. My son has been ill for the past two years. He's autistic and that has been a difficult issue. Your claim that nature has little to do with our quests is subtly insulting and arrogant in the extreme.

You will never comprehend this issue in all its depths. That is as clear as it's unnecessary. We who are adopted know what we need and the last thing that we need is your approval or your disapproval. Biological racism? You're merely trolling here in an attempt to drum up anger on behalf of adoptive parents.

The last time I saw an adoptive parent make these claims it was long before I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. He claimed there was no need for family medical histories for adopted children, that DNA would provide all those requirements. Let me tell you that I had to pay $5500.00 out of pocket for a BRACA test and it only told me that I don't carry the gene. Since it was negative it took me a year to pay for it while I was going through chemotherapy. That was a helluva hardship, I'll tell you. It diagnosed nothing else, no medical issues that would help now with my son's health problems.

What are you people afraid of? Searching our our birth parents has nothing to do with our adoptive parents. It's about us, not you and it has nothing to do with this invented term of biological racism you've invented.

Some things you just can't ride around...

[–] rdeschene 14 years ago

Many children who are adopted feel a need to find their biological parents. It may seem inexplicable to anyone who is not adopted, but I think it's is perfectly understood by adopted children who feel this yearning. One woman I know says her adoptive parents were wonderful, extremely loving, and yet somehow there was always something missing. Maybe it's just having that connection with your past that is handed down from one generation to the next. And there are also practical reasons, many of them connected with genetics and health issues, that can prompt an adopted child to seek out his/her biological parents. But the most common thread seems to be an emotional one, a desire to complete the picture of one's life . . . even if the outcome isn't what that person desired.

[–] mlc2005 13 years ago

Dang, you totally missed the point!!!! Hortense was the strongest character in the movie, not the "weakest." She found out she was adopted when she was 7, and she did not look for her birth mother until she was an adult (I'm guessing 30's), and it was after her mom died. Were you adopted? If not, you can't possibly know what that is like.

More incorrect is your questions as to why Hortense would want to keep contact with Cynthia, after first meeting her? Let me remind you that it was CYNTHIA who called Hortense after the first visit, and said "I've been thinking about you all day." BTW, in the first meeting, Cynthia displayed emotion which implied that she was profoundly moved by meeting her daughter. And in the scene with Hortense's female friend, I think it was established that, while Hortense had "friends," perhaps she didn't feel she had anyone who truly knew her.

Finally, I disagree with your characterization that there is "no hint at the possibility of this making a family." You missed the point of this movie completely. While totally different in background, Hortense was an open, non-judgmental woman who was obviously capable of accepting her mother, despite her being a working class woman. And then there's Cynthia and Roxanne, who, especially at the end of the movie, seem excited to allow Hortense into their family, as they know she's a genuine person.

You missed this one by a long shot.

[–] forallpracticalpurposes1 11 years ago

1. Do we think only uneducated and unsuccessful people want to find their birth-parents? If by your first paragraph you meant she already had everything she wanted/needed...she clearly knew from a young age she was adopted. She probably had always wondered.

2. We should not think her birth mother did not want her. People who place children for adoption don't always do so to escape the responsibility of child-rearing, I know that's what many would like others to think but it simply isn't always true (yes, I am a birth mother).

3. Biological origins matter greatly depending on the person. True, there are those who don't care either way.....but in the grand scheme of things, closure can be important.

4. I agree, many seemed to have a lot of issues in the film(namely the mother) and I did not necessarily like how the adopted child seemed to be the most balanced while the birth-family seemed to be the most dysfunctional (although I was certainly pleased Hortense ended up successful and practical). Many who place children for adoption go on to get educations, struggle through years of heartbreak and heartache, struggle to find and forgive themselves for not being able to care for a child they had at the time....and they come out ok. Some are successful and professional people who are quite calm and rational - I wish we could see a movie about adoption just once where there was not so much dysfunction and chaos.

Even if the mother in this movie was sexually promiscuous in her teens, there is no reason why she may not have pulled it together and improved herself and her life. I don't like how people with problems are almost shown to be working class.....all people have problems and all types of people have placed children for adoption, are adoptees or have overcome great difficulties because of poor choices early in life.

I can certainly see why Hortense wanted to meet her mother. She was absolutely frightened but took the chance anyway. At least she would not have lived out her life always wondering 'what if'.

-LeLu

[–] hodie 11 years ago

OP is trolling, or hasn't watched the movie very carefully. Hortense was mature enough to understand why young women sometimes give up their babies. And the mother NEVER looked down on Hortense. In fact, she seemed pretty impressed by Hortense's success in life. If she seemed taken aback at first, it was because she had always believed that another man, a white man, had fathered Hortense.

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"