MovieChat Forums > The Magic of Ordinary Days (2005) Discussion > baby's daddy??

baby's daddy??

posted 14 years ago by aimhack
8 replies | jump to latest

Love this movie, just watched it again on CBS. I'm a little confused as to who is the actual father of the baby, Livy believes the father is the man that she's writing letters to. But in the letter she finally receives from him, he denies that it's his, and then after she has the nightmare where she calls out for her mother, she says something along the lines of she gave her life away to be held by a stranger. This made me believe she had a one night stand (not with the man she's writing, sorry I can't remember his name) with a stranger. Any thoughts? If this has been discussed before, feel free to link to it, I tried reading through all the posts, but didn't see anything about it. THANKS!

[–] apple325 14 years ago

The baby daddy was Edward the man she was writing letters to. Like a typical coward (a la John Edward) he was just denying paternity becuase he didn't want to be held responsible for being a father.

She had sex with Edward becuase she was lonely from losing her mother and wanted to be held in someones arms.

[–] deliaw1946 12 years ago

Didn't they have paternity tests back then?

[–] Wishingforsunshine 12 years ago

No, they didn't have paternity tests. DNA testing is a relatively new science.

The best they had back then was MAYBE blood typing, (A, B, AB, O,)which might possibly be useful, and basic family resemblance, IE, the kid has red hair, so maybe the red-haired dude is the dad.

[–] celestialtreat 14 years ago

Also, Edward's statement to Livy - I hope you find the father of this child - was a thinly veiled insult: he was accusing her of having slept with a lot of men. Which she hadn't: it was just Edward and (later) Ray.

I don't remember that part being in the book, though.

"Hey, that's right... We're supposed to sing about pirate-y things!" - Mr. Lunt

[–] zuzus_petalz 14 years ago

Edward was the father and a coward.

[–] rizdek 10 years ago

I caught that as well...by making that statement it was a double insult. Not only was he not taking responsibility for the child, but was actually accusing her of being promiscuous.

[–] artistathome 9 years ago

Even blood testing today cannot prove paternity, all it can do is disprove it.
IOW if your baby is 0+ and the man is 0+, that doesn't prove he is the dad since many many men are 0+..
However if your baby is B+ and the man is O+, then he is NOT the father under any known circumstances.

However an O+ man can father a child who turns out to be 0-. RH neg can happen if the two parents each hold a negative blood gene from each of their parents. There would be a 1 in 4 chance that a baby could be negative if both parents are positive.

My sisters and brother are all 0- and our parents are both 0+. For each pregnancy we received the recessive neg gene from both parents.

[–] lichencraig 8 years ago

No, the father was the man she wrote letters to... the professor. He denied it because he was a jerk he couldn't handle the responsibility of her pregnancy. It was easier to tell her she was crazy, than to stand up and be a man. When she says "to be held by a stranger".. she didn't mean a literal stranger, she meant that she hadn't known this man well, and the man she thought she knew him to be didn't exist. He turned out to be cruel and selfish.