The Ending Makes No Sense - Philomena (2013) Discussion

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 10 years ago

It is true that Michael is buried there, so your issue is not with the movie.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] fawkes-107-392142 10 years ago

My issue is with the movie. If "Michael" was openly gay and his lover asked for a Catholic burial in the convent cemetery, and received one, then the real nuns are not the hateful, nasty caricatures depicted in this movie. The stink of agenda in this film is overwhelming.

reply

[–] HarlowMGM 9 years ago

There's no agenda in this movie, it's non-fiction. Don't know why you are threatened by the fact that a few nuns behaved less than honorably and are called on it. Philomena remained a devout Catholic thoroughout the film and never blamed the church.

reply

[–] kunal-karni 9 years ago

Please don't waste your time explaining..

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

The stink of agenda in this film is overwhelming.

So true! It’s ironic; all throughout the movie you see Martin and Rita talking about making the story exactly what it turns out to be; a heavily biased (against the nuns) story but people still seem to fall for it.

reply

[–] toots81 8 years ago

It is a FACT that nuns abused women sent to the Magdalene laundries and removed their children. So what is your issue?

reply

[–] paulmarkj 8 years ago

How is t biased against nuns?

Philomena actually says some of the nuns were nice. But the truth is (the actual, real truth) they took her baby, imprisoned her, sold the baby, burned the records then lied about what happened.

How is it biased to tell the truth.

The bias here is you: you don't want the truth to be told.

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

paulmark says > How is t biased against nuns?

I really wish you'd watch the movie again; this time with an open-mind. You must learn to see beyond what you're shown. For one thing, in the movie, they discuss how they will make the nuns the villains of the story - the author and his publisher. That's the angle they were going with and sure enough, that's how the story and the movie turned out.

I really wish people would stop and think about what the alternatives might have been for Philomena and other girls like her if the nuns were not around. There wouldn't be a story for everyone to gripe about. Having no other options, Philomena would have probably flung herself off some cliff. That would have been the end of both her story and the child.

It's really sad how easily people will fall in line with whatever slant is presented to them. At the time, closed adoption were the only option especially in Ireland. The mood changed later but everyone went into it knowing things would be a certain way. Some may decide to change the rules along the way but it doesn't mean they get to rewrite all the standards from the time.

It's possible, without privacy, a lot of those adoption would not have been made and the kids would have lived out their lives institutionalized. Philomena could not have taken care of herself, much less her son. If money changed hands, when the children were placed, it was no-doubt for fees and expenses. As I'm certain I've said before, the nuns were not living it up with that money. They put it back into the work they were doing helping these girls and their children.

I can even understand the hard-nosed nun elderly nun who was embittered about these girls. All of them were old enough to know they could get pregnant but they let a moment of pleasure cloud their judgment. They brought a child into the equation even though they were in no way able financially, emotionally, or otherwise to have or care for a child. They created the situation they found themselves in and hoisted it on an innocent child.

The fact Philomena later got her act together is great but, unfortunately, there were consequences to her earlier actions. She signed away her rights to the child and then spent years keeping it a secret from her family. Had she spoken up sooner, she would have found her son independent of the nuns. And, why was he not given her information?

As I recall, at the time he showed up at the abbey looking for information on her, Philomena was still keeping mum. Imagine what would have happened if she, who had not yet dealt with her past, had her long lost gay child show up on her doorstep. She would have been upset to have been put in that position because she wasn't ready to accept any of that.

I grew up in private parochial schools and have dealt with my share of really mean nuns so I'm not defending nuns as a rule. They, like all of us, come in all types. My point with this movie is they are made out to be the cause of a woman's agony when really the woman wouldn't have these issues to agonize over had they not been there for her. The nuns were there for her when her only family or the boy who fathered the child were not. Let's see things for what they really are.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] RothmanMax 8 years ago

An open mind? Haahaa you are asking a lot from these brainwashed sods!😀

nobody lives forever...

reply

[–] MosquitoMagnet 7 years ago

If the nuns and religion wasn't around, and sins therefor didn't exist in people's minds, who's to say that the parents would have certainly thrown their pregnant daughters out of their homes?

Maybe you can understand why the elderly nuns were bitter, but does it give them the right to do the deplorable things they did? Doesn't Jesus teach compassion for the sinners and that only God should judge them, therefore only God has the right to punish them? By doing what they did, the nuns played God.

reply

[–] paulmarkj 8 years ago

How is ut biased against nuns?

Philomena actually says some of the nuns were nice. But the truth is (the actual, real truth) they took her baby, imprisoned her, sold the baby, burned the records then lied about what happened.

How is it biased to tell the truth.

The bias here is you: you don't want the truth to be told.

reply

[–] katewashere 8 years ago

That is a moronic point. It was the nuns 50 years ago who sent him to America and in any case they probably forgive him after he died, lifestyle or not. Its only religious people in America who picket funerals and vilify people after they've died.

And there isn't an "agenda". The film is a true story.

reply

[–] paulmarkj 8 years ago

In truth and in real life, he IS buried there. If there is a conflict, that is not the film's fault.

reply

[–] RothmanMax 8 years ago

Of course if someone could donate just like a £1000 to the church they would have no problem burying Hitler in there.

nobody lives forever...

reply

[–] Clothes-Off 9 years ago

It's quite simple. The order agreed to the burial for the same reason they agreed to adopt out babies in whether parents were suitable or not. It wasn't principle, it was MONEY. (Thoroughly explained in the book, which is more about Anthony/Michael than Philomena. He left his wishes very clear in legal documents, and it was all settled financially.)

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

[–] fawkes-107-392142 9 years ago

If the nuns were "in it for the money" they would have asked Philomena for a "contribution" before telling her where her son was buried. Instead they treat him and his gay lover with utmost kindness and condemn Philomena as the Whore of Babylon. If you are going to broadcast anti-Catholic propaganda, keep the vitriol consistent.

Also, everyone keeps saying "read the book and it will explain apparent inaccuracies." Any time it is necessary to read the source material to understand plot contradictions, the filmmaker has failed miserably.

reply

[–] Clothes-Off 9 years ago

You seem to want to bash the movie as much as you claim other commenters want to bash the church. I agree with the other comment above that states your issue is not with the movie. So they were not consistently "bad". That's not a problem with the plot, that was the reality. I'll give you that Sr. Hildegard at the end being portrayed as malicious, but that's one character. As for the rest of the story, they're not going to come out smelling rosy any way you slice it. Besides, I really doubt anyone is going to renounce his/her faith over this if they haven't already due to...well, you know.

reply

[–] vincentlynch-moonoi 9 years ago

No, that's not really true (regarding "Also, everyone keeps saying "read the book and it will explain apparent inaccuracies." Any time it is necessary to read the source material to understand plot contradictions, the filmmaker has failed miserably.).

A book is one way to tell a story. And even "non-fiction" is not purely factual. A "non-fiction" book is still told from a point of view (POV). What does the author decide to include? What about the story does he choose to exclude? How does he tell the story? Neutrally? Pro? Anti? And in what ways does he mold his story telling to accomplish the publisher's goal -- to sell books to people who buy books.

A movie is a different way to tell a story. And a screen writer and a director also tell their story from a POV. And just like a publisher's goal is to sell books to people who buy books, a movie company's goal is to sell movie tickets (and DVDs) to people who prefer watching a movie over buying a book. It's usually a generally different audience.

In this particular case, the author of the book told his story in 484 pages. The movie director had just 98 minutes to tell the story. They cannot be congruent.

reply

[–] david_weinstock 7 years ago

i just read the book and what a waste of time. if they hadn't changed the movie story so much, judy dench would have been in it for five minutes. the majority of the book was about mike (anthony) and his self esteem that went from being not good enough to working for some of the s.o.b's that made him feel not good enough. i expected some reunion. as long as they changed so much, they should have given it a happy ending. i have no objection to mike's life and loves, but i got the book out because i thought the story would be about phil's quest for her son, not her son's quest. i lived in sf and saw a lot of the aids tragedy at my step brother's house. very sad decade. well, tough for me, wasting three days on this book.

reply

[–] supergran 7 years ago

The book is truly dreadful, isn't it?

Although Martin Sixsmith helped Philomena in her quest, he is to be derided for this awful book. But Steve Coogan doesn't fare much better, in my opinion. So much of this film was fictionalised.

Such a shame, when the truth could stand on it's own and be fascinating.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] cbsgd 8 years ago

The nuns never told her where her son was buried -- his partner told her where her son was buried. The nuns wouldn't even tell her anything about him, even though both she and her son had visited numerous times over the years, trying to find each other.

What you -- and all the others complaining about an "agenda" and "propaganda" in this movie -- are failing to acknowledge, is that THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It is an indisputable fact that thousands of young women were abused, used as slave labor, and had their babies stolen from them without their consent, all with the approval of the Catholic Church. (Fun fact: it's also true that the Republicans cut funding for AIDS research.) The Republican party in America and the Catholic Church in Ireland have created their own shameful histories without any need for your imagined "Liberal Anti-Catholic Propaganda and Agenda."

reply

[–] Debette-1 8 years ago

Your post needs a "like" button. :-)

reply

[–] lavashop 9 years ago

It is quite easy to understand.
The Catholic Church is a paradox.
They are capable of doing good but also of creating hardship, pain and suffering for many.
This film clearly explains how the ill intentions of a few, can easily affect so many.
The Church is imperfect and this fact should not be be sugar coated.

reply

[–] pouncemo 9 years ago

Beautifully stated. However, it is not easily understood by many that something can be both good and bad. I struggle with it myself and I tend NOT to think in black and white.

reply

[–] emncaity 9 years ago

The Catholic Church is a paradox.
They are capable of doing good but also of creating hardship, pain and suffering for many.

Ah, so...like human beings.

So right, actually. You can appreciate the (maybe grudging) evolution of the Church into a somewhat kinder and more open institution, and I guess you can understand their flawed idea that it's best for everyone to keep those who have been parted apart forever, in separate lives, rather than reopening some really deep wounds. But in the end, I have to see it as Martin did. It's an abomination. To deny a dying man the chance to meet his mother (and the mother her chance to meet her son) may be well-meaning cruelty, but it's damn well cruelty anyway.

The film does a really nice job of going back to the root of the mistreatment, which appears clearly to be this weird view of sex that some (not all) versions of Christianity have (fewer now than used to be, but still). It's not only monstrous in its effects, but counterproductive as well. If you teach kids that sexual pleasure is something to be ashamed of and avoided, then in what context do you think they'll seek it? Quick encounters in a car, behind a building, while the parents are out, etc. Get all the fun in before marriage starts, because once that happens, your life is over, and have to be straight and godly. Be sorry for even wanting it, and hide it from yourself. It leads to the habit of living a kind of dual reality, where there's the version of yourself you put out to the world, and then the one you actually are.

Isn't that the prevailing ethic? Sleep with anybody you can, get it all in now, and then "settle down" later, and maybe you and your SO can sort of forget about all those other people. You can create a pleasant fiction that isn't quite you. Or maybe you've just decided that sex is so purely physical and so meaningless that you don't need to forget, and you're just fine with not having it as something unique to you and the person to whom you've committed your life. Any version of the Church that promotes the "sex as evil and regrettable" line is unwittingly and totally promoting that prevailing ethic, the very thing it should want to contravene. It's like a weird symbiotic thing, where imbalance on one side must have imbalance on the other.

Where does this twisted notion come from, that there's something wrong with it, that it's not good and right, in the right situation? But if these kids had been raised to understand that it's one of the best things in life -- and why shouldn't it be, if it's how we're made? -- something to be celebrated and enjoyed with the right person in the right context, maybe more of them would choose to make sure it actually happened in the right context rather than feeling they have to steal quick moments with whoever comes along and offers (or demands) it. People treat treasure better than they treat trash, but this view of sex is that it's trash. So how would the Church expect them to act about it?

And so, I guess, babies who come from it ought to be given to "better" people. And then you have incalculable misery and wrongness. Anybody who's had children will find certain scenes in this film almost impossibly tragic to watch. Knowing the basic story actually happened over and over again is almost too much to bear, just as a human being. But then you have to look at efforts of people like Philomena and Martin to remind yourself of what good humans can do, too. Which leads back to your original point, really.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

emncaity says >I guess you can understand their flawed idea that it's best for everyone to keep those who have been parted apart forever, in separate lives, rather than reopening some really deep wounds. But in the end, I have to see it as Martin did. It's an abomination. To deny a dying man the chance to meet his mother (and the mother her chance to meet her son) may be well-meaning cruelty, but it's damn well cruelty anyway.

During that time, Irish adoptions were closed and the associated records were sealed. Apparently, that continues to be the case today (at least for that period of time). The nuns didn't make the rules but they were obligated to follow them. Suggesting they're cruel, uncaring, villains for choosing to obey the laws of the land shows a clear lack of understanding on your part.

It's very possible the nuns burned the records linking the mothers with their children as a way to avoid any temptation to reveal information they knew they could not legally divulge. Henceforth, the nuns did not have to lie to the families because the truth is they didn't know which mother delivered which child.

Given the law, it's unlikely they were required to keep this information in perpetuity. Duplicates of all other records pertaining to the girls or the children would have been on file with the Irish government.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

emncaity says>...if these kids had been raised to understand that it's one of the best things in life -- and why shouldn't it be, if it's how we're made? -- something to be celebrated and enjoyed with the right person in the right context, maybe more of them would choose to make sure it actually happened in the right context rather than feeling they have to steal quick moments with whoever comes along and offers (or demands) it.

This just proves you have no idea what you're talking about. You very strongly criticize the Church for sending, what you say is, the wrong message about sex while simultaneously stating EXACTLY the Church's actual stance on sex. Amazing!

The problem is too many parents either teach their children absolutely nothing on the subject of sex or they say it's dirty and wrong hoping the kids will steer clear of it. Whether children get the right message, the wrong message, or no message at all at home, they come up against a distinctly different message in the media and just about everywhere else in society these days that says anything goes.

The Church teaches us we have free will but society's reckless messages along with immaturity, and the inevitable surge of hormones at puberty make it difficult for young people (and plenty of older ones) to control their impulses and consider the possible repercussions of their actions.

Difficult, however, is not the same as impossible. Raising children with good values, making sure they respect life, and respect themselves; and making sure those values and messages are constantly reinforced goes a very long way towards helping children make thoughtful, responsible decisions.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

emncaity says > And so, I guess, babies who come from it ought to be given to "better" people. And then you have incalculable misery and wrongness. Anybody who's had children will find certain scenes in this film almost impossibly tragic to watch. Knowing the basic story actually happened over and over again is almost too much to bear, just as a human being. But then you have to look at efforts of people like Philomena and Martin to remind yourself of what good humans can do, too.

This is exactly what made those situations so difficult and why some people went to such extremes trying to prevent them. You seem to think the children would have been better off remaining with their birth mothers but that was usually not an option. The girls were young, poor, uneducated, often too young to work, and lacking the support of their families and the community. If they couldn't pay the nominal sum to leave the convent, how were they going to care for themselves and a child from that moment on?

The adoptive parents weren't necessarily 'better' people or more loving but they were, at the very least, able to provide for those kids. Finding suitable parents would have been hard enough but it would have been much harder if they thought the birth mother could, at any time, show up on their doorsteps to take the child or otherwise disrupt their families.

Is today's popular solution better; abort the child? Children do not just come into existence, they're created. Whether it's intentional or not, they deserve, first and foremost, to be seen as what they are, human beings in our earliest form, and not some blob of cells as some people claim. Beyond that, children deserve to be born, loved, and properly cared for; not thought of as a problem, mistake, nuisance, inconvenience, or something that needs to be tolerated or dealt with.

Think for a moment what might have happened to Philomena and the other girls if the nuns weren't there to help; or what life would have been like for her son and the other children; especially the ones who weren't lucky enough to be adopted. From what I can tell, both Philomena and her son had much better lives than either would have had otherwise.

Even after her difficult delivery, Philomena went on to have another child. She got to be a mother, had a career, and is comfortable. Her son had a family, had a successful career, and had options a gay man in Ireland may not have had. Mother and child also were able to spend quality time together when the boy was young. That was a blessing because birth mothers often never get to hold or lay eyes on the child, ever. Compared to all that could have been, not being able to see each other later in their lives is a relatively small sacrifice.

reply

[–] jmhow 9 years ago

Nominal sum? I'll have to watch it again, but IIRC it was something like 100 pounds! In the 50s! Even a middle class family would've been hard pressed to come up with that sum.

www.freerice.com

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

I'm not going to argue about the amount. It was a lot of money then just as it would be a lot of money today for a girl in that position – young, alone, unemployed, and pregnant.

I was referring to what that money represented. These girls were given their lives back. That alone was worth much more than any sum. They were given the support and care they needed while pregnant and they got to have their children.

Most of the children, I suspect were placed in homes and had a life they could never have hoped to have otherwise. Even if some grew up in an orphanage, which would not have been ideal, the alternative was still a whole lot worse; like not having a life, living on the street, or struggling from an early age. Life was rough, starting with giving birth and being born but these girls and their kids had a chance.

That's the thing that drives me crazy when I read some of these comments. People keep attacking the nuns, forgetting or choosing not to consider the alternative situations these mothers and children faced.

The money they were asked to pay if they left would have been a nominal sum compared to what they had gotten. Those funds not only went to pay their way, they were used to help to keep the program going. The girls that came before them stayed or paid; that helped them as they were asked to do the same; stay or pay a sum to help other girls who would be coming after them.

If a girl decided to benefit from all the help she'd gotten then just selfishly walked away, someone else would miss out on those same benefits or someone would have to be hired to do the work the girl chose not to do. If you do the math, it's unlikely anyone could have been hired for what a girl was asked to pay. The girls were given room and board during their stay, clothing, care, and everything they and their children needed. What do you think all that cost? It wasn’t cheap!

If a girl wanted to eliminate the 'problem' she would have had to scrape together some money to pay for an abortion. She may also have had to pay to travel to get to the dreadful place. The same would apply today. Somehow they can come up with the money needed to get rid of their kid but ask them to pay (only if they leave) and that's suddenly a big deal. Seriously?!

Please people, put your minds to work and stop just reacting to the nonsensical things you keep being told and are expected to believe. Stop letting people push your emotional buttons all the time. Isn't it exhausting to keep jumping when someone says jump? Everyone old enough to watch these movies and comment on them on these boards should know better. We should all be able to think critically and for ourselves. Don't just eat up whatever slop is presented for your consumption.

Yes, Philomena's story is sad but it's slanted in a way to make it seem worse than it was; like she was enslaved and mistreated when she was not. She fell 'victim' to a system she could have easily avoided but once things were set in motion she needed help and she got it. She should be grateful she had those nuns to help her; no one else was stepping to the plate. Some people will say things are better now because she would have a 'choice'. How ridiculous! She wouldn’t have met a child she had killed either.

In a lot of ways, the girls at the Abbey may have had it better than their counterparts who hadn't gotten pregnant or who had but got rid of the child. Some of them had little to eat and wore rags. They may have worked just as hard or harder to support themselves or help support their families. Many of those girls never had a chance at a fresh start. Philomena became a nurse which means she got some education; maybe she just learned by helping out at the Abbey. She had a good life and a family. That was due to the help she'd gotten early on. What’s more, her child also had life and a chance to live.

So Philomena never got to meet her son and people want to blame some nuns. Is it the nun’' fault her made choices in his life that caused his life to be cut short? We all know had he lived longer, he would have met his mother. Why hasn't anyone considered that? No, it’s easier to blame the nuns; the very ones who helped him have a life. Go figure!

reply

[–] jmhow 9 years ago

You slant your rant by calling it a nominal sum when it was a fortune. No one needs to read eleven paragraphs in response to that one quibble. I didn't attack any nuns. I didn't advocate abortion as an alternative. I didn't even speculate on what might have been if things had been different. I simply pointed out that you might reconsider your own bias.

www.freerice.com

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

Yes, for the girls, that sum is a lot of money. I've already conceded that point. The payment is meant to encourage them to stay so it has to be a lot. Had it been too low or if no payment was required, most of the girls would probably have left; not staying the full four years.

Still, compared to what it would cost them to make it out in the world on their own, either before they had the child or after, the sum is nominal. If they couldn't pay that relatively small amount to the nuns, how would they have ever been able to afford to eat, pay rent, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.?

And, considering all they had received, again, the sum is nominal. I don't know how else to say it. The word has a meaning and I used it because I felt it best fit the point I was trying to make.

Also, it's important to remember, the girls were never asked to pay for anything they received. The payment was only required if they decided to leave in less than four years. Staying those four years was their opportunity to 'pay it forward' just as the girls who had come before them had made it possible for them to be there.

reply

[–] junk.mail.only 8 years ago

Calling it a fortune is more of a slant. It's about $3200 today if you adjust using British inflation and current exchange rates, or $2500 if you use the 1952 exchange rate and US inflation.

Put in another way, working at minimum wage in the UK today, you would have to save about 16% of your salary for a year to pay it off.

reply

[–] TheGreatGunnerB 8 years ago

16% of a year's salary of any of those poor girls is about $0 today [yes, zero], the same as it was then

Given that those girls weren't paid anything and were effectively slave labour, THEY could NEVER pay off their 'debt' early
Therefore, £100 was indeed a fortune to them

And that idiot mdonln is just an ignorant troll, coming out as it does with inane statements such as
"These girls were given their lives back"
I suspect that it knows next to nothing about the Magdalen Laundries and, even if it did, it probably wouldn't care, judging by its sociopathic comments
I wonder if it's actually a priest or a nun?

[I haven't responded to it directly, as I refuse to feed trolls]

reply

[–] cooler56 9 years ago

It makes perfect sense because that's what happened in real life. Michael Hess was buried at Roscrea Convent. Maybe he never told them that he was gay and dying of AIDS.

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

Case closed.

reply

[–] bear022013-588-696101 9 years ago

Being a normal,well adjusted Irish Catholic American,I felt that this little film would be a nice way to spend two hours.Well,I was wrong!
-Steve Coogan was miscast to the point where his performance was distracting.
- The movie was boring,but I hung in waiting for some magic.
- I do not understand what anyone could actually enjoy the drivel.
- Then the bomb dropped and Michael was gay?
- Yes,it is just a movie,but this is not the Ireland that I knew on numerous visits
across the pond.
-American films have ruined the family unit in Ireland.

reply

[–] EightTenPM 9 years ago

bear022013-588-696101
-American films have ruined the family unit in Ireland.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Can you tell us how American films have ruined the family unit in Ireland?

(I love spoilers so go ahead and tell me everything.)

reply

[–] DendelionBlu 9 years ago

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Can you tell us how American films have ruined the family unit in Ireland?

Well that's easily explained

You see the "family unit in Ireland" - whatever that incredibly generic statement means - was perfect. Everyone loved each other and abode the "family unit in Ireland" rules, which are clearly stated in the "Rules and Regulations of the Family Unit in Ireland act, 1951"

However: enter "American Films" - another incredibly large and generic statement, but hey. The "family united in Ireland" started watching "American Films". They penetrated their minds. They had nightmares about it and screamed at night

If I recall correctly somewhere in there there was an actual crack in the object described as the "family unit in Ireland". It was inflicted by "American Films"

And that's how it was ruined

True story

Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me

reply

[–] EightTenPM 9 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up for me DendelionBlu!

(I love spoilers so go ahead and tell me everything.)

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

DendelionBlu, you are too funny! 😊

reply

[–] dmill030 9 years ago

Television programs from the UK (much less censored) had more to do with changing mores in Ireland than any "American film." That, and legalizing contraception and civil divorce.

reply

[–] alexatahiraj 9 years ago

American films have not ruined the family units of Ireland. Catholic churches and like minded people like yourself have ruined the family units of Ireland.

The "magic" is the truth has come out about how many of the nuns back then treated these young girls.

Philomena was brave enough to have her story told, from a time that young women were shunned if they got pregnant. She was so ashamed that she kept that secret to herself all those years. Yet she forgave that horrible excuse of a nun. The God I know would not want this for these young girls or children. It is exactly some of these reasons that I do not believe in any religion. I believe in God, not all this other crap that heartless people are telling us how we should live so God will love us.

I would really hope that you are not a normal, well adjusted Irish Catholic American. I would hope that normal, well adjusted Irish Catholic American women have compassion and empathy for these atrocities these young women and children went through. How many of these children were told their mothers abandoned them? My heart breaks for all of them. And yes I cried a few times in the movie. I am not ashamed of that, it only reminds me that I have a heart.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

This did cross my mind also... but I rationalised it by arguing that their issue was with Philomena for her promiscuous conduct, not the resultant child, itself...



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

Yeah, Wolf, that's how I see it too.

rhe key is in Sr. Hildegard's primary statement, about her own chastity and Philomena's lack of it. That's where her passion lay, her pride and judgement. She made it clear she felt Philomena's "sin" was extreme, and that both her physical and emotional pain were fitting payment for her actions -- no mention of the man who contributed to her pregnancy, though. Her focus was on the "sin" of the woman, so quite possibly she saw Anthony/Michael's fate (both his sexuality and his illness) as another part of Philomena's punishment.

The wilful destruction of the records makes it clear it was an institutional policy to keep the girls and their babies apart. And given how harsh and judgemental Hildegard was on the issue, it's not hard to believe she would willingly cause such pain and still believe she was being righteous.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] alexatahiraj 9 years ago

But their issue was with the children as well in a way. The nuns sold their children right from under them.

Then when Michael went there to inquire about his mother they lied to him and told him they didnt know where she was.

Also the huge bonfire of all the records and then lying about it and saying they were lost in the big fire.

I will say this much they sinned much more than these young girls did and I hope the pearly gates are locked tight with a big sign that says "Go To Hell."

All those children thinking all their lives their mother abandoned them. They punished them as well.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

Then when Michael went there to inquire about his mother they lied to him and told him they didnt know where she was.

Also the huge bonfire of all the records and then lying about it and saying they were lost in the big fire.

As sister Hildegaard explained, they did so to pain the mothers...

The children may have been hurt as a consequence, but they were hurt, indirectly.

They had nothing particularly against the children - hence why they were happy for the son to visit... They just wanted to prevent the mothers from finding them.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] alexatahiraj 9 years ago

Yes, you are right it was indirectly to a point. However, burning all the records clearly indicated they knew what they were doing was wrong. I don't see Hildegard seeing it was wrong what they did to those girls, but maybe were concerned if they were investigated legally there would be problems.

Honestly Hildegard stating she was remained untouched to that day made me laugh. Why would anyone want to touch that?

She was extremely cruel to those girls and not at all what the bible teaches.

I find it also humorous that she allowed Michael to be buried there. If she knew he was gay she never would have allowed it, but she would blame that on Philomena's sins.

reply

[–] Dbusdriver71 9 years ago

You could consider that philomena was strong by forgiving the nuns for what they did. Even she knew that they will be held accountable in the future. Like she said, 'it must be exausting'. She was refering to hatered. She was the strongest of anyone in the movie.

reply

[–] blindvias-071407 9 years ago

His ashes were flown to Ireland, not his body.

reply

[–] MycroftHolmes 8 years ago

Catholic burials are not as stringent as they used to be. My cousin who committed suicide was just buried in a Catholic Cemetery and a priest attended the funeral.

What we got here is... failure to communicate!



reply