MovieChat Forums > Then She Found Me (2008) Discussion > Why doesn't she care for HIS children al...

Why doesn't she care for HIS children also?

posted 16 years ago by mhellerman
9 replies | jump to latest

I do not understand why she is never shown to CARE about HIS children. If she is so desperate to be a mother, then she should have had SOME MOTHERLY FEELINGS towards them, furthermore they didn't have a mother present, just the father, so the kids probably would have been dying for her attention...
And yet, that is NOT explored and in the final scene the kids are on their own while he and then she take care of the adopted daughter. It feels so selfish, wouldn't it have been better to show them all integrated?

But maybe because H. Hunt maybe thought about the protagonists' perspective she didn't realize that showing that her family was there in the house there for HER didn't mean that SHE was there for anyone than herself and her "project": HER kid.

If I am being too judgmental you can ignore me, but if any of you out there agrees or disagrees, feel free to let me know why.

Please know that this comment does not have anything to do with the adoption subject because taking care of his kids AS WELL also was into the adoption category.

[–] shawmolly 16 years ago

While she does seem distant during most scenes with the kids, I do think Helen Hunt's character cares for them. When she has the conference with Colin Firth, she tells him very detailed things about his son, which show that she's really paying close attention and cares about the child's well-being. And I thought the scene where they're all in bed together was very sweet. For all that she wants to be a mother, she doesn't exactly know how to act. But she gratefully accepts the daughter's frog and gives her a mint, which is all she really has.

You talked about the kids being on their own while Helen and Colin take care of the adopted daughter, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. The only scene with the adopted daughter is with Helen at the very end. In the scene before that, I just took it to be the kids playing outside while Helen was inside waiting for the call about the new baby. It would have been nice to have it end with a scene with the whole family, but I guess she wanted to come back to the Jewish joke told at the beginning and just have it be her & the daughter on the steps outside the house that they all share.

[–] jake_randi_mom 16 years ago

OK, I literally just finished this movie. I did not get the impression that she did not care about his kids. In fact, she seemed to care about them enough in the few scenes shared. She said really nice things about the son during the conference. Remember, April and Frank had just started dating. Wouldn't it be even more weird if she was all "motherly" too soon (speaking as a single mom, I think it is too weird when guys want to be all fatherly to my kids too soon)?? And at the end of the movie, his kids were outside doing sidewalk chalk, and he was on the side of the house with the baby. I did not read the book, so I am not sure of the details- but maybe they were married, maybe not.... Who knows?

[–] mhellerman 16 years ago

Well, maybe I come from a latin culture where her demeanor towards the kids (other than being interested in them "as a teacher") was not very caring. And at the end her boyfriend? husband? is taking care of the kid- on the side of the house- as the kid is by herself, not playing with the other kids. I don't know! I just thought that if they wanted to show an ending with a happy re-grouped family then they could have shown them ALL together at the table or something like that. At the end is HER and HER KID, and her mother and brother together inside. I don't know. If it how the narrative is told and the choices that are made.

I listened to Helen Hunt's comments on the DVD but she didn't say this was in the book, but that it was an ending they added later on, that when she filmed the movie they were not knowing how it was going to end, so I gathered the book is different.

Yes, maybe it is a matter of cultural perception: The fact that is not shown may not exclude the fact that it IS there. ANd you are right, they may be "visiting" his house and not be a couple necessarily- good point.

[–] barneysmith22 16 years ago

There were no young children at all in the book. Neither Colin Firth's nor Matthew Broderick's character were in the book. April didn't want a child in the book, and she didn't adopt one, either. April taught high school Latin in the book and had never been married. She was adopted, did have a brother, was "found" by her birth mother after her adoptive mother's death, and she did have a love interest, a very nerdy, gawky, wonderful character named Dwight who was very unlike the character played by Firth in the movie. Both her birth and adoptive fathers were also in the book. In short, the book is very, very different from the movie, and it is a wonderful, extremely funny story. I would highly recommend it. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy the movie, because I did, but don't look to the book for answers to questions about the movie, because they are almost two different stories.

[–] mhellerman 16 years ago

Thank you for the description of the book, Barneysmith22! It makes me want to read it. Thanks again for posting the explanation!

[–] klorentz 15 years ago

She seemed quite sweet to the little girl when the girl gave her the frog, but keep in mind that she is the older child's teacher -- and at that point in the relationship April is in a very awkward position.

Later on, we saw only one bit where she asks where their father is.

[–] bunny226622 15 years ago

Also, connecting with someone else's children can be confusing when the other parent is still there. It's not like if you adopt and then you are the primary parent without the biological parents involved. You have freedom with that relationship. You don't know what kind of attention will be accepted or welcomed by your partner and their children. I think it would take time to develop a close relationship with a partner's kids because you'd have to feel it out, possibly for years.

"Which lever do I pull to be crushed by a safe?"-Karen(Will & Grace)

[–] KAnnD86 15 years ago

I got the impression she was keeping her distance because as a teacher, she's not supposed to get involved with one of the parents. She didn't want the kids to be confused and/or tell everybody she's been sleeping over. Also, she probably didn't want to seem presumptuous that she could become their mother overnight, even though that's what Colin Firth's character seemed to want. I thought the scene in bed was really sweet. It showed that the kids were ready to accept her.

Tomorrow's just your future yesterday!

[–] chuck-526 11 years ago

Well I didn't interpret it that way. I'm curious: do you have any experience parenting?

If she is so desperate to be a mother, then she should have had SOME MOTHERLY FEELINGS towards them, furthermore they didn't have a mother present, just the father, so the kids probably would have been dying for her attention

What about her going along to the hospital for the ear infection and helping to care for the kids there?

And what about the scene where they're all in bed and the little girl gives her a stuffed frog and she gives the little girl a mint in return?

...in the final scene the kids are on their own while he and then she take care of the adopted daughter.

That's purely age.

The last thing kids his kids age playing outdoors in the daytime want is some &*^%$# adult looking over their shoulder. They barely even looked up when the adults passed.

Her adopted daughter on the other hand was much younger, and so when outside needed to be watched constantly.