Author: Bitch Flicks

Call for Writers: Feminist Travel Films

Call for Writers: Feminist Travel Films
It’s almost summer in the states, and we’re thinking one thing: Road Trip! 
To gear up, how about some good feminist travel films? Whether by land, air, or sea, let’s look at how travel and gender are represented when movie characters take a trip. 
Want to take on a classic road trip movie and its (lack) of gender diversity? 
Is there a bromance road trip movie you’re dying to critique? 
Do you have a favorite travel flick and want to tell us why it’s so good?
Here are some suggestions, but feel free to propose your own! 
10 
2 Days in Paris
Amelie 
Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert 

The Beach

Before Sunrise
Before Sunset
Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Bonnie and Clyde 
Boys on the Side
Brokedown Palace
Easy Rider 
Eat, Pray, Love 
Enchanted April
Flirting with Disaster 
The Holiday
How Stella Got Her Groove Back 
Little Miss Sunshine 
Lost in Translation
Natural Born Killers 
Roman Holiday
Sex and the City 2
Shirley Valentine
Sideways 
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Thelma and Louise
Under the Tuscan Sun
Vagabond
The Wizard of Oz
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Here are some basic guidelines for guest writers:
–Pieces should be between 700 and 2,000 words.
–Include images (with captions) and links in your piece, along with a title for your article.
–Send your piece in the text of an email, attaching all images, no later than Friday, May 24th.
–Include a 2-3 sentence bio for placement at the end of your piece.
Email us at btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com if you’d like to contribute a review. We accept original pieces or cross-posts. 
We look forward to reading your submissions!

#FemFuture Roundtable with Bitch Flicks Editors

Amber: Hi, all! 
Megan: Hola!! 
Amber: I’m reading the report now, so I’ll let you two take the lead in the convo.

Stephanie: So, FemFuture … not to get narcissistic right off the bat, but where do blogs like ours fit into that discussion?

Megan: I don’t think that’s narcissistic at all. I think it’s a pertinent question.

Stephanie: Because funding IS important, but who decides WHO gets funding — the “connected” people? Because that’s certainly what it seems like.

Megan: Very true. But even the “connected” people are often times not funded either.

Stephanie: No one is funded now.

Megan: Or are not funded enough to make it their primary job. Feministing comes to mind.

Stephanie: The FemFuture discussion was about HOW to get funding for bloggers, right?

Megan: It was about the future of online feminism, part of it was funding as well as meeting annually and networking. But yes, a big thrust of it was the argument that online feminists aren’t getting funded and should be.

Stephanie: Right. So … I mean, they really didn’t even mention Shakesville? LOLOLOL

Megan: I KNOW. Ridiculous. How could you ignore Shakesville???? One of the most influential and prolific feminist blogs???

Stephanie: So, the “connected” people are the ones deciding whose blogs are important and who gets funding.

Megan: Shameful. I saw their argument or conversation more as everyone should be funded. BUT by leaving Shakesville out, which as Melissa McEwan states in her post about FemFuture, is not in NYC or DC, it does make it seem that is what is happening, even if not explicitly stated.

Stephanie: Trans blogs, vegan blogs, etc.

Megan: YES!!!!

Stephanie: That report was a fucking shitshow.

Megan: I mean c’mon, ridiculous.

Amber: From what I’ve read, I agree!

Stephanie: It was SO OUT OF TOUCH and that’s what scares me.

Megan: YES!!!

Stephanie: Like, you’re The Leaders of this and you have no fucking idea what’s going on with blogs right now.

Megan: I really, really, really like that a report like this was done. However, and that’s a ginormous however. If you’re going to do it, and discuss how marginal online feminism and feminist blogs are, shouldn’t you strive to be as inclusive as possible? And not perpetuate exclusion??

Amber: I also think that what we’re doing is at the intersection of film and feminism, which doesn’t really fit their precise definition of what feminist online activists are and what we do.

Megan: YES, Amber!!! People don’t often think of feminism and the arts as part of the “feminist online community.”

Amber: Same as what Steph said, with regard to vegan feminists, et al.

Megan: Well, as a vegan feminist, I can tell you there aren’t a whole hell of a lot of vegan feminist blogs but that’s beside the point.

Stephanie: It’s true, and it’s funny … because (not to be ridic) but I think what we’re doing is  important because it’s challenging media portrayals … and media portrayals are what feed these fucking stereotypes about people/women/etc.

Megan: They should be reaching out to ALL kinds of feminist blogs. Omg you are so NOT being ridiculous AT ALL. I agree. Media starts shaping our lives inculcating us into sexism and patriarchy at an early age.

Stephanie: It’s like, how is this NOT where we start? Especially with kids (which is why I liked the animated films week so much).

Megan: Yes, yes, yes.

Stephanie: Maybe they felt like they already involved Women’s Media Center and Jenn Pozner’s media site.

Megan: And as we age, media shapes how we view the news, and what news we see and hear.

Amber: As someone who does not, and has not ever, lived in a major media center, the clubbishness and exclusiveness of the fem community has always angered me.

Megan: If you’re going to write about how online feminism needs to be more inclusive and funded and not treated as a fringe thing, then maybe you should be, oh I don’t know, INCLUSIVE.

Amber: YES.

Megan: Amber, I live close to NYC and still feel that way too.

Amber: There’s such a contradiction in the very premise of it: we’re diverse and living all over the place, yet only the NYC fems (no offense, NYC) get to determine the future???

Megan: I mean, the NYC feminist community, the people who are a part of it are super nice and friendly and welcoming. But it can still feel cliquish.

Amber: Shouldn’t this have been a big organized teleconference? THAT would have been historic.

Megan: I had a very brief convo about this on Twitter. About how all feminist bloggers live in NYC. When I replied that I don’t, they were like yeah but you’re in the Northeast. True but trust me, Boston and NYC are not the same.

Stephanie: So read this….this is from the new FAQ from FemFuture report/site: “We chose people whose work we knew about and respected who represented a diverse range of perspectives and kinds of work. Our hope was to see if in-person conversation and convening could add something to the conversation that already existed online. One particular regret was, we weren’t able to bring much geographic diversity to the convening—which we wanted to be in person and intimate. While so many of us originally come from different areas of the country (and world), and have built online communities of readers, followers and colleagues worldwide, the majority of the convening attendees currently live on the east coast. This was a gap we acknowledge and hope will be filled in follow up conversations—either online or in person—and welcome ideas.”

Megan: Also, I checked on the geographical location of most of the speakers…They don’t just live on the East Coast…They live in NYC or NJ.

Stephanie: Bwwahahhaahah NYC/NJ equals all of the East Coast now!

Megan: I KNOW!!!! I mean, what the fuck. Just talking about cities, fuck you, Boston, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Baltimore, Charleston. Bleh.

Stephanie: I love how I’m getting even MORE pissed.

Megan: LOL right????

Stephanie: Also, they apparently didn’t even CONSULT with people who don’t live there (like Liss) … and it’s funny because the Flyover Feminism blog they started together is important in addressing that not all feminists live in these metro areas.

Megan: I KNOW!!!!

Stephanie: ALSO, I fucking live in NYC, and I don’t have a big networking personality, so fuck that.

Megan: You were exactly who I was thinking of!!!

Stephanie: Our bloggers live ALL OVER (the country/world LOL) so fuck that too.

Megan: So it’s exclusionary to you too despite your physical proximity.

Stephanie: Exactly.

Megan: EXACTLY.

Amber: YES. And doesn’t that create a more diverse perspective? Our bloggers being everywhere, I mean.

Stephanie: I mean, like 5 people came to our party, and we’ve been around for 5 years in NYC.

Megan: Yes to both of you! Did either of you read Flavia Dzodan’s reply US Centrism and Inhabiting a Non-Space in FemFuture? So, so good.

Amber: I have Flavia’s piece open now.

Megan: Basically she talks about living in Europe and how she doesn’t fit the U.S. feminism mold.

Stephanie: “I sincerely have no thoughts because I don’t belong in this.”

Megan: Yep. And THIS! “To call what is going on in an Anglo centric environment ‘online feminism’ is to cast me (and millions like me) away from the umbrella. We live elsewhere.”

Stephanie: Love.

Amber: “My resistance ends up being a double bind: I need to resist the policies, racism, discrimination, etc of a State that considers those like me disposable and I need to resist the absorption of the ‘Mother Ship’ that owns the discourses around which feminist issues matter the most.”

Megan: Mmhmm

Stephanie: I wish I knew how to express my emotions about this but I don’t wanna be all “they didn’t incluuuuude uuuuuus” LOL

Megan: LOL I know. And part of me feels like we should band together. But a larger part of me is like fuck that noise. There’s nothing wrong with being critical of our own community, even a community that we’re kinda sorta not even really a part of because it doesn’t speak to us, include us or address us.

Amber: They’re not speaking to us or for us, and maybe that’s okay?

Stephanie: YES. No, YES to Megan, not Amber. LOL

Amber: I mean, it pisses me off.

Megan: Zerlina Maxwell tweeted that FemFuture is not a zero sum end game. It’s a starting point. Amber, I hear you but I don’t think it is okay.

Stephanie: It is absolutely not okay … but maybe people’s anger/disappointment about the whole thing could change it.

Megan: I think if you’re talking about “feminism” or “online feminism,” then you need to be as inclusive and diverse as possible.

Stephanie: A real inclusive way to handle it would’ve been to tweet or blog or something to get the word out and have bloggers send in their responses about what the blogosphere is like for them.

Megan: YES!!!

Stephanie: I mean fucking DUH.

Megan: LOL

Stephanie: You get together in a closed room like a bunch of fucking Republicans and try to discuss some shit you know nothing about?

Megan: Did either of you see MAKERS, that documentary?

Stephanie: Nope.

Megan: Okay so the documentary is really good, chronicling the history of the women’s movement and feminism in the U.S. BUT…

Stephanie: It’s like, bloggers are already discouraged. What isn’t helping is you getting up there with your very successful blogs and being all “how do we get funding for ourselves”? LOL. Sorry, go ahead …

Megan: …it leaves only 5 or 10 mins for feminism in the past 10 years and doesn’t even fucking talk about online feminism!!! This pissed off a shitload of people on Twitter because duh. We were written out of this documentary’s history of feminism. But now it feels like that’s exactly what’s happening here. Bitch Magazine has a compilation of people’s responses to FemFuture. And Feministe does too.

Amber: I’ve been much less engaged in the overall FemFuture convo, and I’m honestly on the fence about my anger. On one hand, RAGE, you know? But on the other, this is just more of the same. It’s anti-feminist to create this online feminist hierarchy. But that’s what’s been happening for years, and that’s what FemFuture is continuing. I’ve never wanted to be part of the Professional Feminist Club, because that entire fucking notion is anti-feminist. What Steph said about them acting like a bunch of fucking Republicans is true.

Megan: Yes, yes to all of this. I’m not even sure they realize what they’re doing. Which is shitty. You need to recognize and check your privilege at the door. And living in NYC and having a huge feminist blog or backing organization gives you privilege. It kinda reminds me of the arguments I’ve heard when people critique anti-choice laws in the South or Midwest…”Why don’t they just leave?” Um, fuck you. Who are you to tell someone to leave their home??? But I digress.

Amber: No, it’s all the same. Not a digression.

Megan: Thank you. And true, it stems from the same argument.

Amber: I grew up in the Midwest and live in the South. Shouldn’t FemFuture be reaching out, not to ME, Amber, but to people/orgs/blogs who are slogging through in hostile areas? Rhetorical Q, duh.

Megan: YES. I mean to not reach out to Shakesville or Flyover Feminism, bare minimum, is just shameful.

Amber: Totally.

Megan: I keep saying or rather writing shameful because it is. I mean I know they (Courtney Martin and Vanessa Valenti — both of whom I respect) know about them because Feministing did a piece on Flyover Feminism. And um hello, google??? But I know what you mean about feeling torn. I do too. I feel like we’re not supposed to complain or critique because women and feminists get torn down all the time. But this is seriously wrong. Just thinking about urban areas for a moment, I also don’t like the argument that all urban areas are the same. Because living in Boston, which is only 4 hours away from NYC, has different challenges. For example, for our Bowl-a-thon to raise money for abortion funds, Boston has to do a Triathlon instead of karaoke and Wii Bowling because no bowling alley will host us.

Amber: I remember us chatting about that a while back.

Megan: Yeah, it just bugs me.

Amber: It bugs me, too.

Megan: It’s like I adore NYC. Love, love, love. But the sun doesn’t rise and set only on NYC. What else should we discuss about FemFuture? How do we move forward??

Amber: Well, that’s the real question. We could chat all day about the exclusionary aspects of it. But I still can’t get over the fundamental flaw of the “report.” And the marginalization of pop culture blogs as an “entry point.” We’re doing important, challenging work. Not just Bitch Flicks. Taking culture to task is a central issue.

Megan: YES!!!! It infuriates me how people see pop culture, media and art criticism as fluffy entertainment. It’s not. That’s why it’s such crucial work, because people don’t recognize and appreciate its insidious power. But are there other aspects of the conversation or report that bother you that we haven’t discussed?

Stephanie: Just jumping in on that last comment — um, yeah! If people saw abortion depicted in a humanizing way on their fucking TV shows (which people increasingly watch more and more), then our entire political discourse around the subject would CHANGE.

Megan: EXACTLY.

Stephanie: Talking about political discourse without talking about media representations is completely BACKWARDS in 2013.

Megan: Yes, I don’t know how you can divorce the two.

Stephanie: Our society is run by media devices.

Megan: Yes, advertising, media outlets, film studios….everything. What else do we want to say? What are the solutions?

Amber: Treat it like any other media we critique. Take the authors to task for their exclusiveness.

Stephanie: It might be a better use of our time to discuss writing a new “ABOUT” manifesto for Bitch Flicks and tie the FemFuture thing into it. Like, why is BF important…

Amber: LOVE!

Megan: That’s a great idea!

Stephanie: …and make people fucking understand WHY it’s important, because even some feminists seem unclear on that.

Megan: Some…seems like almost all!

Stephanie: I was working on something like it for a while, behind the scenes. Here’s an excerpt: “That’s both the biggest challenge and the greatest opportunity of blogging about film and television from a feminist perspective—learning to understand how the images we’re fed by the media pretend to reflect back the current cultural climate in an effort to maintain it. And what the predominantly white, patriarchal, heteronormative industry insiders want to maintain is a white, patriarchal, heteronormative status quo.”

Megan: That quote is AWESOME. That quote meaning your quote :)

Stephanie: Haha! Thx. Well, let’s start a document and add some stuff to it. We need a new manifesto!

Megan: Sounds great! Anything else we want to say about it?

Stephanie: “Because, more than anything, we believe the blind and uncritical consumption of media portrayals of women contributes to furthering women’s equality in all areas of life. And the absolute most challenging aspect of blogging about the portrayal of women in film and television is finding a way to make those connections, to reinforce the fact that watching a TV show, for instance, in which a woman is violently beaten onscreen—for voyeuristic, entertainment purposes only and without critical commentary—helps to desensitize us and normalize violence against women.” That’s another section [of the BF manifesto].

Megan: YES, love!

Stephanie: I don’t want a group of elite privileged feminists speaking for me. It’s the same set-up that feminism tries to work AGAINST. So why are we recreating it? We’re supposed to be looking for new ways of doing things. It reminds me of all the Occupy Wall Street in-fighting … the people with the loudest voices (usually dudes), with the most confidence, automatically took over and spoke for everyone. I’m glad FemFuture is having the conversation, but they should’ve asked under-the-radar bloggers to contribute and, you know, Shakesville. LMAO. 

Megan: And yes to what you said about Occupy Wall Street and in-fighting and how we’re supposed to be doing it differently so why are we perpetuating same hierarchical bullshit?? 
Stephanie: yes — HIERARCHICAL is the word. Sit back and fucking LISTEN. 
Megan: YES.
Stephanie: They should’ve had Women & Hollywood at least. I mean c’mon. 
Megan: You can’t be truly diverse or truly inclusive if you don’t reach out to as many groups, blogs, individuals as possible. And having women of color participants doesn’t automatically equate diverse representation. 
Stephanie: YES!! 
Megan: So what else can we do? Are there any other solutions to FemFuture? Besides to keep doing what we’re doing writing about female filmmakers and critiquing media. 
Stephanie: I think we need to 1) write a new ABOUT page that we publish on our site and that emphasizes why what we’re doing is so important 2) mention the FemFuture discussion and how media bloggers need to be (and absolutely are) at the forefront of online feminism’s future, and 3) talk about how talking about media is an important way to reach people who aren’t necessarily thinking intellectually/theoretically about Feminist Issues all the time. 
Megan: Love it all. You know what else we can do?? 
Stephanie: The future of online feminism absolutely cannot be White Feminists in an intellectual Ivory Tower talking to other feminists. No, WHAT?! 
Megan: We could put out a call to have people send us who should have been on that report
Stephanie: YES!!!!!! 
Megan: All the under the radar bloggers and even not so under the radar (hello Shakesville and Flyover) 
Stephanie: We could just make a fucking list … with a link and a description of their blog.
Megan: YES, exactly. We could start a list and ask people to contribute. I’m just so tired of complaining (although I do love to complain LOL) and not having solutions. 
Stephanie: LET’S DO IT

Mara Adina on Producing Indie Flick ‘Chuck Norris vs. Communism’

Chuck Norris vs Communism
This is a guest post written by Mara Adina, producer of Chuck Norris vs Communism.
I started my career in film in the Middle East as after university I moved to Kuwait where I worked at the national television (KTV).
I spent the majority of the first month working there trying to find ways for the all-men crew that worked with me to acknowledge my existence, and not just turn their backs when I spoke and then to get them to listen to what I had to say.
I struggled with finding ways to keep hold of my feminine identity and not succumb to the pressure of becoming “one of the guys” in order to be listened to.
On my return to the UK, I look back to what I thought were very extreme circumstances and realise that they are actually a reality here as well. We all know it’s difficult to be taken seriously as a woman in film and broadcasting – but if you add to that a pair of heels and red lipstick, things become even more tricky.
Today, I run my own company and I am one of the few who is trying to break through the bleak statistics of female producers in the industry.

Mara Adina, producer of Chuck Norris vs. Communism
I am currently producing my sister’s feature documentary, Chuck Norris vs Communism, and we are both so proud to tell the world the story of a very strong and brave woman.
Irina Nistor was one of the only female film translators to work in the Eastern Bloc during the 1980s. She dubbed over 5,000 Western blockbusters that entered Romania illegally during communism. Their rapid spread of the VHS tapes across the country turned Irina’s voice into a symbol of freedom and allowed a whole country to subvert a brutal regime. Here is our trailer:
We fell in love with the story and every bit of the journey of making this film has been incredible. We don’t just want to make this film through conventional avenues, we want to fund it by gathering the support of those to whom the story speaks, inspires and empowers.
We want to build a community around it and bring this film and Irina’s story to you, who are also striving to break through the statistics.
So we have launched a crowdfunding campaign for the film where like minded people can join the crew and help tell this story through contributions as small as $10. Please have a look at our campaign and help however you can.
Screen shot from Chuck Norris vs. Communism
The fundraising campaign for Chuck Norris vs Communism is live until this Thursday (May 2).
Produced by Vernon Films in co production with Kloos & Co in Germany, 4Proof Film in Romania and WMM in North America.
Chuck Norris vs Communism tells the story of the transformation of a nation through a seemingly small act of resistance. In the 1980s, Ceausescu’s Romania became the most Stalinist regime of the Soviet bloc.
At the same time, hidden from the scrutinising eyes of the Secret Police, Irina Nistor dubbed over 5,000 foreign blockbusters that entered Romania illegally.
They turned Irina’s voice into a symbol of freedom, Chuck Norris, Van Damme and Bruce Lee into national heroes and allowed a whole country to subvert a brutal regime.
The filmmakers have been working on the project for the past year and a half, shoot for three months and are now in a critical phase of post production. 
The film is nearly complete but they need you to get over the finishing line! So, they have set up a campaign page where you can make pledges and become a part of this film. 
Follow this LINK for the crowdfunding page where you will find an array of exciting rewards including the chance to become an animated character in the film!
For more information go to: 

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

TIME Unveils 2013 Most Influential People in the World by Kerensa Cadenas via Women and Hollywood
Will ‘Mad Men’ Ever Be as Good On Race as It Is On Gender? by Eleanor Barkhorn, Ashley Fetters and Amy Sullivan via The Atlantic
Stop Saying that Men Don’t Read Women by Ester Bloom via Slate’s Double X
A Night with Barbra Streisand by Melissa Silverstein via Women and Hollywood
Infographic: Where are the Women Directors? by Kerensa Cadenas via Women and Hollywood
What have you been reading and/or writing this week?? Tell us in the comments!

The Ten Most-Read Posts from March 2013

Did you miss these popular posts on Bitch Flicks? If so, here’s your chance to catch up. 


“Stoker: The Creepiest Coming-of-Age Tale I’ve Ever Seen” by Stephanie Rogers

“Shut Up and Sing: The Dixie Chicks Controversy Ten Years Later” by Kerri French

“Clueless: Way Existential” by Robin Hitchcock

“Female Empowerment, a Critique of Patriarchy … Is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon the Most Feminist Action Film Ever?” by Megan Kearns

“Gigli and the Male Fantasy of the Lesbian Turned Straight” by Amanda Rodriguez

“So, Is There Racial Bias on The Good Wife?” by Melanie Wanga

“Oz the Great and Powerful Rekindles the Notion That Women Are Wicked” by Natalie Wilson

“Red, Blue, and Giallo: Dario Argento’s Suspiria“ by Max Thornton

“Feminist Blogger Twisty Faster and Advanced Patriarchy Blaming” by Amanda Rodriguez

“Sexism in Three of Bollywood’s Most Popular Films” by Katherine Filaseta

Roundup: Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss in Film and TV Week

Children of Men (2006)

The “Plague” of Infertility in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men by Carleen Tibbetts

Women can’t get pregnant anymore and nobody knows why. This the central lamentation in Alfonso Cuaron’s 2006 dystopian film Children of Men, based on P.D. James’s novel. Set in England in the year 2027, this is the story of the human race entering its final phase. Cuaron brings us into Orwellian territory in which nations worldwide have fallen as a result of war, disease, and famine. Britain remains a sort of lucrative last bastion in these end times and people across the globe are scrambling to get in.

 Sarah from Inside (2007)

Inside: French Pregnant Body Horror at Its Finest by Deirdre Crimmins

Horror films have a unique way of showcasing exactly what we fear, but they often do so in a subtle way. While is it goes without saying that ax-wielding maniacs are to be feared, these films often slyly expose the issues that our society is too shy to deal with head on. In the 2007 French horror film Inside (directed by Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury), fertility, reproduction, and infant loss are dealt with in a refreshingly direct and uncompromisingly bloody outcome, with no room for subtlety.

Robin in How I Met Your Mother

How I Met Your Mother: One of the Few TV Shows to Explore a Childfree Life for Women by Megan Kearns

HIMYM suffers many gender problems. Yes, it infuriated me Lily received so much backlash when she went to LA to pursue her dream of an art career. Almost everything Barney says or does – his sexist stereotypes, objectification of women, and fat-shaming – pisses me off. And yes, it bugs me that Robin’s unconventional female personality of Scotch drinking, hockey loving, cigar smoking and gun ownership has been pinned on her father raising her as a boy…even going so far as to name her Robin Charles Scherbatsky, Jr. But the show hasn’t fallen into the sexist trap that a woman isn’t a “real” woman without a baby.

Buffy comics, Season 9

Buffy Season 9: Sci-Fi Pregnancies and the Story that Almost Was by Pauline Holdsworth

Nikki Wood—New York punk slayer and the mother of ex-Sunnydale High principal Robin Wood—had been absent from the Buffyverse for a long time. So it’s a bit of a surprise when she shows up in the opening scenes of “On Your Own,” the second volume of the Season 9 Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic books. She’s being held off the edge of a tall building by the throat, pumped full of sedatives that have taken away her powers for a Council-mandated rite of passage. She’s pregnant.

Peekaboo: Still born. Still loved

Stillbirth. Still Ignored by Debbie Howard [Trigger Warning]

I completed my short drama Peekaboo nearly two years ago, but I started writing it about three years before that. I had two friends who had experienced baby loss, one to miscarriage and one who had given her baby up for adoption. I had a dream one night that merged these two stories together; this was the beginning of Peekaboo, which is about a couple who has lost three babies to stillbirth. I wrote a first draft of the script then started researching in great detail as I developed the script. I was shocked to discover that hardly anything had been made about this subject before.
Tell Me You Love Me (2007)

Infertility and Miscarriage in HBO’s Tell Me You Love Me by Stephanie Rogers

Perhaps what I found interesting, and even important, especially as a woman starting to understand how feminism fit into my life in a practical way, were the gender dynamics at play in Palek and Carolyn’s pregnancy struggles. Throughout the ten-episode arc, Carolyn basically treats Palek as a sperm donor, and his complaints about the lack of intimacy in their relationship stem from that—he wants feeling and emotion attached to making love with his wife; yet Carolyn sees that as unimportant, often demanding that he provide her with sex whenever she asks for it.

Kee, played by Clare-Hope Ashitey

The Exploitation of Women in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men by Amanda Rodriguez

Children of Men‘s depiction of women as props, tools, symbols, or cardboard underscores the notion that women’s true purpose is reproduction, and when women can’t reproduce, they’re not only useless, but society itself collapses under the burden of their neglect of duty. Despite many of the intriguing themes this film explores (including a scathing denouncement of the treatment of immigrants), Children of Men ends up falling in line with its mainstream contemporaries to assert that women are merely bodies, that a woman’s value lies in her ability to reproduce, and that she has and should have no control over that body or that ability to reproduce.

Jennifer Garner as Vanessa Loring in Juno

Vanessa Loring: Pathetic or Plausible? A Matter of Perception by Talia Liben Yarmush

What really hit me was Jennifer Garner’s character, Vanessa. In past viewings of the movie, the hopeful adoptive mother seemed somewhat desperate. Her overly enthusiastic smile. The fact that Juno’s snarky remarks would fly past her with barely any recognition. Her obsessive questioning and controlling perfectionism. When saying goodbye after meeting for the first time, Vanessa asks Juno how likely she is to go through with the adoption, and Juno says, nonchalantly, that she is going to do it. “How sure would you say you are? Like, would you say you’re 80% sure, or 90% sure?” Vanessa pushes. She was more than desperate, really. She was pathetic. She seemed to be written for the purpose of added comic relief. But as my friends laughed at her on screen, I felt sad, and angry.

We Want a Child (1949)

The Power of Portrayal: Infertility, Reproductive Choice and Reproduction in We Want a Child by Leigh Kolb

The frank discussion about infertility, abortion, prenatal care and adoption make this film noteworthy. It feels quite remarkable to watch characters discuss the range of emotions surrounding these subjects. The film isn’t a masterpiece, and it moves quickly and relies on some common tropes surrounding the topic of infertility and adoption, but some of the dialogue is striking in its honesty and timelessness.

Ronnie from Eastenders

The Characterization of Bereaved Mothers: Are We Getting It Right? by Angela Smith

Ironically, script submissions are often invited by TV and film producers with the emphasis on creating strong female characters. However, soap writers seem all too eager to completely and utterly smash these women down to the point of no return. It’s one thing to cleverly show different sides to their personality, but to completely destroy a useful and inspirational character is unnecessary and sadistic.

Yerma (1999)

Yerma: The Pain, Heartbreak and Destruction of Infertility and Patriarchy by Leigh Kolb

Yerma’s words about the deep, miserable feelings surrounding infertility are poignant and heartbreakingly accurate. While much is going on in this film worth discussing–the patriarchal culture that arranges marriages and ties a woman’s worth solely to her ability to have children, obviously, and the immediate blame of the woman when a couple can’t conceive–Yerma’s struggle with infertility is one of the most accurate portrayals of that grief that I’ve ever seen.

A mother makes a difference.

How a Flatliners Ad During a Movie Showing Made This Woman Walk Out by Pandora Diane MacMillan

I think this was one of the very first film showings that included a special, movie-only commercial meant to promote a new line of Levi’s jeans. The new line was apparently to be called “Flatliners,” yes, a promotional tie-in with that film, with the association that Flatliner Jeans would make the wearer look slim and “flat.” They also apparently thought it would be cute, hip, and hilarious to display the young male wearer of said jeans as DEAD and FLATLINED and to have someone jumpstart the person’s heart with defibrillators(!).

Days of Our Lives

Days of Our Lives: Punishing Nicole’s Fetus by Janyce Denise Glasper

Days of Our Lives writers appeared to be Nicole’s biggest adversaries, judgmentally weaving a “how can we top that last terrible heartbreak for this evil woman who committed paltry crimes at best?” Horrific enough that she went through the tragedy of losing a baby once, but to push her into repeating that trauma in an astonishingly grotesque manner seemed much uncalled for and heinous. They made an example of out this Mary Magdalene pariah, promising miraculous motherhood twice and ripping it from her grasp, a condemnation for her tumultuously stormy past.

Away We Go (2009)

Away We Go: Infertility and the Indie Film by LD Anderson

I found Tom and Munch to be hurtful caricatures of infertile couples. I understand that the desire to have children of one’s own loins is very natural, and that the inability to do so can be extremely painful. However, I would dare say that society’s insistence on considering adoption second-rate, and its complete failure to recognize childless couples as families, makes it far more painful than it has to be.

I can tell you that the first theme, miscarriage, is shown in only seconds, and it is a scene that will remain with you throughout the entire film. In thirty seconds, this animated family film is able to portray the loss in such a visceral way that even if you have never had an experience like it, you will be brought to tears. And I can tell you that the second theme, living childfree, is complicated and filled with mixed emotions.

“You are not alone in this.”

Empty Wombs and Blank Screens: The Absence of Infertility and Pregnancy Loss in Media by Leigh Kolb

I try to rationalize why portrayals of infertility and pregnancy loss are so rare. Where is the action, a scriptwriting professor scribbled in my margins when I had too much internal dialogue or a conversation between female friends. There’s not much action in infertility. The struggle is literally and figuratively inside. 
But then I realize I’m just making excuses for Hollywood. Infertility and pregnancy loss are rich with story-line possibilities. The very nature of these tragedies is in lock-step with literary conflicts and archetypes. (Wo)man vs. self? Check. (Wo)man vs. nature? Check. Journey/quest? Check. Unhealable wound? Check.
But now that she has lost her son, Daenerys decides she will take the Iron Throne herself and rule the Seven Kingdoms. Now that all the men in her life – her husband, son and brother – have died, she now claims the throne for her own. Dany becomes the metaphorical phoenix rising from the ashes, purging the last vestiges of her former timid self to transition into her life as a powerful leader…The Mother of Dragons cares for the dragons as if they were her own babies…Yet it is the loss of her son that enables Daenerys to envision herself in the role of leader. No longer is she supporting a man to be a great leader. She has become that leader.

Previously appeared at Bitch Flicks:
Feminist Flashback: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Megan Kearns (first published on June 14, 2011)
Movie Review: Baby Mama by Amber Leab (first published on October 23, 2008)

Reproduction & Abortion Week: Mother and Child by Candice Frederick (first published on April 25, 2012)

What to Expect When You’re Expecting: Unexpected Gem by Robin Hitchcock (first published on October 12, 2012)

When Life Gives You Infertility, Make Your House Fly: Found Family in ‘UP’

Carl and Ellie in their home
This is a guest post written by Talia Liben Yarmush for our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss.

Pixar’s UP begins with young Carl, an adventure-admiring, imaginative boy meeting his match in young Ellie. The two hit it off instantly with their shared interest in everything adventure, and the first eleven and a half minutes are an ode to their lifelong mutual devotion to each other. They become fast friends; they fall in love, marry, and build a life together. The only thing missing? After Ellie suffers a miscarriage, the two are immeasurably saddened by the loss of this baby. In an attempt to fill the void, Carl establishes an “Adventure Fund,” so that together they may one day be able to live what they always dreamed. However, with each passing year comes a new obstacle, requiring them to deplete their funds over and over again. Until one day, Ellie, old and weak, dies. And Carl is left alone with sadness and regret at not giving Ellie her big adventure. When I saw UP in the theater, I was sitting next to my husband, a man I met when I was 14, became best friends with, married, and was now going through infertility treatments with. So, this intro hit pretty close to home.

As I see it, the two infertility themes in this story are miscarriage and living childfree. Despite my vast experience with infertility, I am not personally familiar with either of these. I have, thankfully, never had a miscarriage (although during one very painful episode of endometrial bleeding, my husband and I were sure that I was in the midst of one), and thanks to IVF, I now have two sons. I can tell you that the first theme, miscarriage, is shown in only seconds, and it is a scene that will remain with you throughout the entire film. In thirty seconds, this animated family film is able to portray the loss in such a visceral way that even if you have never had an experience like it, you will be brought to tears. And I can tell you that the second theme, living childfree, is complicated and filled with mixed emotions. Carl, tormented by his inability to give his wife what she wanted, finally realizes by the end of the film that Ellie’s life with him was her adventure, and that she was happy with it. Many couples must make the difficult decision whether to keep trying, to continue fertility treatments, to hope that the next cycle works, that the next pregnancy sticks, to attempt adoption, or to somehow find a way to come to terms with a life without children. Some couples make this decision. But for some, the decision is made for them.

Carl and Ellie prepare the nursery for their baby
The question is what to do once that decision has been made. Once an infertile couple mourns the loss of a life without children and finds peace with their new reality, can the void ever be filled by something or someone else? Ellie, as we learn, was happy and satisfied with the life she lived with Carl. But once Ellie died, Carl was left alone. No children. Just memories and unfounded regret. Until he meets Russell. Russell reminds Carl of the boy he once was, and of the girl he married. He reminds him of the family he wanted with Ellie, and of the adventures they’d hoped to go on. Some view Russell as the child that Carl never had. In fact, we find out that Russell himself has an absent father, so Russell was searching for a father just as much as Carl was searching for a son. But I don’t see it in those terms. Russell is a friend, he is a companion, he is a playmate. Russell is Carl’s family. Because we don’t always get to live the life that we had planned. But we do get to choose a great many things. We can choose to keep on fighting for what we want. Or we can choose to make peace with the lives that we have. And, most importantly, we can choose our family, even if we can’t create them ourselves.
———-

Talia Liben Yarmush is a freelance writer and editor. She is also an infertile mother who writes her own blog, The Accidental Typist.

‘Away We Go’: Infertility and the Indie Film

Movie poster for Away We Go
This is a guest post by LD Anderson and appears as part of our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss. 
Away We Go (2009) was part of a spate movies a few years ago that were marketed as “Indie”—with hand-drawn title cards and twee soundtracks—regardless of the film’s studio or budget or anything else. When I finally watched it on DVD, having missed it in the theater, I was disappointed. One of the main reasons was how it treated the issues of infertility and miscarriage, but I’ll get to that.
John Krasinski (The Office) and Maya Rudolph (Saturday Night Live) play Burt and Verona, a struggling thirty-something couple who unexpectedly find themselves pregnant. Verona’s parents are dead, so when Burt’s parents announce that they’re leaving the country, Burt and Verona hit the road to visit friends in search of a chosen family for their child. 
Burt and Verona
There are a few things that I like a lot about this movie, and I want to address those first. I liked the fact that Burt and Verona are an interracial couple. I appreciate the way that the movie takes the idea of chosen family so seriously. I liked the relationship between Burt and Verona, and the approach to parenting that they formulate, both informed by and different from everyone around them.
It’s everyone around them that bugs me.
In an early scene, Burt’s father—the one who’s about to bail on his first grandchild—talks to Verona about a sculpture he bought of a Native American woman. He’s not sure whether it’s Pocahontas or not, but he wants to honor indigenous people—even if he can’t pronounce “indigenous.” Later on, Burt and Verona spend time with Burt’s childhood friend, “LN,” and her husband, who practice Continuum parenting, which is a thinly veiled reference to Attachment Parenting. I’m not going to weigh in on Attachment Parenting here, but suffice it to say that it’s not portrayed positively in Away We Go. LN, however, also quotes from Alice Walker and Simone de Beauvoir. 
Roderick, LN, and Bailey
Between the two scenes, the message seems to be that only the ignorant, the insincere and the hopelessly flakey would take an interest in people of different cultures, or the words of women.
I understand that LN and her husband were meant to be a counterpoint to the comically crude couple visited before them, who were not involved enough with their children instead of too involved. For me, though, the most problematic moment came with the third family that Burt and Verona visited, which was supposed to be the most balanced.
Burt and Verona’s friends, Tom and Munch, seem to have it all—a happy, loving home with three adoptive kids. When the adults go out without the kids, they end up at amateur night at a local strip club. Munch, clad in a black dress, begins to dance for her husband to a slow song, and Tom confides to Burt that she had her fifth miscarriage earlier that week. He then waxes philosophical, wondering aloud if they’ve been “selfish” for waiting so long to start their family. 
Tom and Burt
There are so many problems with this scene, I don’t know where to begin. Whatever you believe about abortion, you can’t “owe” anything to someone who hasn’t been conceived yet. Also, women miscarry for many reasons not related to age. Infertile couples (meaning, for my purposes, couples who can’t carry a pregnancy to term as well as those who can’t conceive) suffer enough without movies telling them to second-guess themselves.
More importantly though, Tom and Munch already have a family. They are contributing the act of parenting to the world. But naturally, the subtext says, the three non-White and/or non-American kids they have at home are not enough to make them happy.
I found Tom and Munch to be hurtful caricatures of infertile couples. I understand that the desire to have children of one’s own loins is very natural, and that the inability to do so can be extremely painful. However, I would dare say that society’s insistence on considering adoption second-rate, and its complete failure to recognize childless couples as families, makes it far more painful than it has to be. 
Verona and Burt
I understand, too, that in the story, Munch’s pain was fresh, and she had another woman’s pregnant belly in her face. That only makes it more insulting that Tom barely watches her dirge-like dance, but is more engaged in whining to Burt. The message is, infertile women aren’t sexy. They’re sad.
In the end, Burt and Verona move into her childhood home, although they don’t have any chosen family nearby that I can recall. She faces the demons of her parents’ death. Whatever. By that point I didn’t even care. Burt and Verona were the only characters in the movie that I really liked. Users on IMDB described the others as “overwritten,” and the movie itself as pretentious, and I have to agree. The fail was the most memorable thing for me about Away We Go. When it comes to movies where a couple deals with infertility, I’d rather re-watch Juno. You know—the one that ends with an adoption.
———-
LD Anderson is a health insurance industry professional living in Nashville, Tennessee. She has been writing professionally about popular culture since high school and currently contributes to Popshifter.com. You can follow her (intermittently) on Twitter at @LDA_writes.

How a ‘Flatliners’ Ad During a Movie Showing Made This Woman Walk Out

Myrna Waldron, my oldest daughter (a regular contributor to Bitch Flicks), baby Rhiannon Roxane Waldron, and the author, their mother, Pandora Diane MacMillan.
This is a guest post by Pandora Diane MacMillan and appears as part of our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss.

It was March 1997. I was at a movie theatre revival showing of the Star Wars sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. This is, admittedly, a very dark film in the first place, the darkest of the Star Wars trilogy. It is the film where Luke finds out his true parentage, in a scene that has become notorious. I’m not going to get into that in any depth because I’m assuming you’re all more or less familiar with the plot of the original Star Wars trilogy.

I think this was one of the very first film showings that included a special, movie-only commercial meant to promote a new line of Levi’s jeans. The new line was apparently to be called “Flatliners,” yes, a promotional tie-in with that film, with the association that Flatliner Jeans would make the wearer look slim and “flat.” They also apparently thought it would be cute, hip, and hilarious to display the young male wearer of said jeans as DEAD and FLATLINED and to have someone jumpstart the person’s heart with defibrillators(!)

So I am part of a captive audience in the theatre at the time when this commercial comes on, in the intermission of The Empire Strikes Back showing. When I heard the flatline sound and saw the picture of the hospital monitor with the flatline showing on its screen, I stood right up and started swearing loudly. I didn’t even know where I was, I was so shattered. The tears were streaming down my face, and I didn’t even feel it. Once I finished swearing, my husband and daughter escorted me out to the lobby. They were equally upset and horrified by the commercial. They didn’t need to ask why I erupted like that.

Only the week before, I had buried my beloved one-month-old baby daughter Rhiannon Roxane, my second daughter. She stopped breathing in my arms when I was burping her, about 3:00 AM on March 4, 1997. It was diagnosed as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome – SIDS. Because my husband and I were awake and aware when little Rhiannon stopped breathing, we called 911, the paramedics came, and they resuscitated our baby. Then they rushed her to the hospital emergency.

I was in despair at the time but nursed a desperate hope. I knew she had probably stopped breathing for at least 5 minutes before I became aware she hadn’t fallen asleep against my shoulder. I had just taken the St John’s Ambulance course at my office so I could give first aid to my co-workers if needed. The course had taught me one important thing: if the brain is deprived of oxygen for more than 5 minutes, that person is likely brain dead. So I was crying and not hoping for very much as we joined the paramedics at the emergency ward.

They spent a long time at the hospital trying to revive my baby girl. I was sitting in a dazed, surreal state, looking down the hallway at the room where baby Rhiannon Roxane lay, our little Rhi-Rox. Then I saw the green line going level across the hospital monitor, no twitches in its movement, straight along, over and over. And I heard that long loud beeeeeeeeeeeep. The flatline sound. The sound of no hope at all when it’s someone you love who is hooked up to it. There will be no defibrillators hooked up to this baby. She is brain dead.

Soon we are called one by one to the telephone in the emergency department. It is the consultant pediatrician on the hotline from Sick Kids Hospital downtown. She has a request for each of us, my husband and me. “Do I have your permission to disconnect life support?” Her voice is cold, clipped, and empty of emotion. I say yes, with a heavy heart. She asks it again. This time she adds, “You do realize she will be a VEGETABLE if I leave her connected to life support?” Oh God, did she have to say that? Feeling punched in the stomach, I say yes again. She asks the question yet a third time. Yes.

I say to my husband, you talk to her. What I hoped for, I don’t know. Anything, but that merciless clinically cold voice. Does she make this call every day? I wondered. Is she dead to all feeling now? Then I hear my husband saying Yes, Yes, Yes three times, and I realize she has asked him the same terrible question.

Now they have official permission to pull the plug. There is nothing for the hospital staff to discuss anymore, except do we want an autopsy. We do. Then we follow the rest of the routine in these circumstances, of which I will spare you the details.

Back to the movie theatre. I am standing in the lobby next to the snack bar. I ask for the theatre manager, to complain about that heartless, insensitive jeans commercial we have just endured. The one where they think the sound and the appearance of a hospital monitor going flatline is terribly funny, and a great way to market a new line of jeans. Why bother with sex as a motivation for buying clothing when you can promise virtual resurrection from the dead if you just put on these “Flatliner” jeans!

But no manager is on duty right now. I’m reduced to talking to the only theatre staff member there, a young man who is sweeping the floor in the lobby. No one else is there, not even the snack bar staff. He is the target audience for this commercial, because he’s barely out of his teens. I talk to him about the commercial. In a sad, resigned voice, he replies, “I didn’t like it either.” His head is down and he looks nearly as bereft of hope that things will ever get better as I feel at that point. Nobody cares anymore. Not that pediatrician on the emergency department hotline. Certainly not the marketing department at Levi’s jeans, I could only conclude.

I give it some thought and realize I need to phone the head office of the jeans company and make a complaint there. I did so the next day. I couldn’t get hold of any top management there, but I was asked by their public relations guy to leave a voice mail for the CEO. I don’t remember everything I said, except that we had just lost our infant daughter the week before. “No one,” I said in my voice mail, “who had lost someone they loved while in hospital and heard again that awful flatline sound, would think that was funny.” But the Flatliners movie, replied the PR guy. Didn’t you see it? Didn’t you get the joke? No, I said. I was 100% certain that at this point I didn’t want to see that movie, ever. Finally, I said with a voice of rage that the commercial had offended me so deeply, that I felt the company had spat on my baby daughter’s grave!

All I wanted was for the commercial to stop, to stop right away, before some other bereaved family had to hear it, had to watch it. But apparently, when they played the voice mail for the Levi’s CEO, and he heard my remarks, he said, “That’s it. We pull the whole campaign. The Flatliners jeans line is cancelled as of now.” I wouldn’t have known about this, except the PR guy phoned me back and told me that this happened. Incidentally, Levi’s sent us two T-shirts by way of apology. I hadn’t expected they would decide to actually stop production of the jeans with that offensive name. I just hoped they would pull the commercial. Obviously, I am relieved that once I brought the issue to their attention, Levi’s immediately did the right thing.

So here’s a case study in how death as a concept was initially handled insensitively by the ad men (who may not even have been employed by Levi’s), and the outcome of that – with an outraged, bereaved mother: me. I can never bring my baby girl back. But I wanted to spare other families who’d lost someone they loved some small portion of the heartache that my family and I had gone through.

———-

Pandora Diane MacMillan holds a BA in English from York University in Toronto Canada. She retired in 2008 after more than 30 years working for the Ontario government in driver and vehicle licensing administration. Pandora has known she wanted to be a writer since Grade 2. She was fortunate enough to have writing as part of her job although it was writing related to licensing questions. She has also written some popular poetry and fan fiction for the Internet and continues to pursue writing as a hobby.

The Characterization of Bereaved Mothers: Are We Getting It Right?

This guest post by Angela Smith previously appeared at Smack in the Face and is cross-posted with permission. It appears as part of our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss.
Tackling the sensitive issue of child loss isn’t easy. Some screenwriters excel at it, while others take the easy option of sending their central female character spiralling into the abyss of depression. In reality this is sometimes the case, but not all audiences are entirely comfortable witnessing a demented mother grieving in a way that’s more sensational than true to life.
Are these women ever portrayed correctly? Is there even a correct way to characterize women who have suffered miscarriage, stillbirth, or cot death (SIDS)? Are audiences brainwashed into thinking all bereaved mothers behave in a specific way?
It’s true there’s a need to educate people by showing such tragedies on screen, but are we getting it right? If so…how? If not…why?
Using British soap Eastenders as an example, there have been various storylines involving infant deaths, be they before or after birth. The grieving mothers have been portrayed in different ways, which is a good thing as no parent who has suffered child loss will react in exactly the same way as another.
Eastenders is set in a fictitious borough in East London called Walford, and the storylines focus on the inhabitants of a specific area called Albert Square. The soap has come under fire many times for its controversial storylines which are generally described as a constant stream of doom and gloom, punctuated by repetitive and predictable sub-plots.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a more bizarre representation of real life and, fairly recently, many soap addicts were up in arms about the tragic cot death of James, a newborn baby boy, and his frantic mother Ronnie’s deranged way of dealing with it.
Their anger was fueled by the sight of Ronnie taking her dead baby to the home of another couple and swapping him for their healthy newborn son, Tommy. This led Tommy’s parents to believe it was their baby who had died instead of Ronnie’s. The storyline was set to run for many months, but it was cut short to only four months due to constant criticism.

Ronnie holds her baby, James, for the last time before swapping him for Tommy

The problem with soaps is that they can run any storyline they want without worrying too much that their audiences will cease to watch. Sadly, this meant Eastenders failed miserably to portray the tragic plight of Ronnie (Samantha Janus) as she spent four hard months being branded a complete nutter by most of the other characters…including her own husband.
When considering young audience members alone, you have to ask yourself if their already limited understanding of the world could prompt them to not only conclude from Eastenders that all bereaved mothers are lunatics, but behave similarly toward them in future.
Many adults are also unaware of the actual implications of the real life loss of an infant, and any misconceptions they already have could easily be reinforced by an exaggerated storyline such as Ronnie’s.
Sadly, many mothers will resist talking about their losses to new acquaintances just to avoid such adverse pre-judgement or an opposite reaction of forced sympathy.
Samantha Janus is a well-respected actress in the UK whose character, Ronnie, was first portrayed as a shrewd, strong, witty, no-nonsense woman. So it’s very sad that she was forced to lead Ronnie into a succession of disasters, which ultimately led to her downfall. The writers ran riot with her character, crushing her personality to a point where it was unrecoverable.

Ronnie’s grasp of reality loosens as she becomes more mentally unstable

Ironically, script submissions are often invited by TV and film producers with the emphasis on creating strong female characters. However, soap writers seem all too eager to completely and utterly smash these women down to the point of no return. It’s one thing to cleverly show different sides to their personality, but to completely destroy a useful and inspirational character is unnecessary and sadistic.
Parallel to Ronnie’s breakdown was the devastation of Kat (Jessie Wallace), the mother of Tommy, the boy who was taken from his cot by Ronnie and swapped for James. So, not only did we have one grieving mother running around with a kidnapped baby, we also had another mother who had no idea her baby was still alive. She and her husband even buried Ronnie’s baby thinking he was theirs.
Thankfully, Kat was portrayed very differently. Her character had always been feisty and aggressive, and she didn’t hold back with her frustration during the four months her baby was thought to be dead. Of the two women, Kat’s behaviour was far more believable, and her determination to get through her ordeal was refreshing to see.

Kat and husband, Alfie, believe they are burying their own son, Tommy

Jessie Wallace played her part with incredible plausibility, and Samantha Janus, regardless of her personal disapproval of the plot, did an amazing job as well. However, I’m without a single doubt that the storyline as a whole should never have been written in the first place.
As much as I appreciate that soaps want to shock and surprise us, using infant loss and the pain of a grieving mother as part of a badly-conceived storyline does nothing but trivialize the emotions and obstacles that would be faced by her in reality.
As a mother who has suffered three stillbirths and several miscarriages, I welcome storylines involving infant loss, and just because I can’t relate to the extreme behaviour that some women present doesn’t mean their story shouldn’t be told.
However, I’m very disappointed in the way a lot of writers will either reduce their character to a quivering mess or send them completely round the twist. If you’re broadcasting to millions of adults and children alike, there really has to be some kind of responsibility taken for the sort of messages being repeatedly sent out.
The creators of Eastenders defended the storyline by arguing that Ronnie would have behaved as she did given the knock-on effect of previous traumas she’d suffered. They also said they were in no way suggesting all grieving mothers would behave similarly. However, the insinuation was there for all to see. Let’s face it…since when did intentions have any bearing on what is ultimately perceived? Perception is a personal thing, unique to every individual.
I hope fewer writers will be tempted to infer that a mother’s loss invokes the need to possess another woman’s child. Knowing she will never hold her own child again is hard enough to deal with. Being portrayed as a psychopath on screen is just adding insult to injury.
Also, suggesting that grieving fathers are better able to muster the strength to support their wives or girlfriends, further implies that women are generally less mentally equipped.
Hopelessness and depression are often paths along which a writer will take a grief-stricken mother. So imagine my joy when I came across Marc Forster’s very thought-provoking film, Everything Put Together. Even thirteen years on, it’s still as poignant as it was when he first directed it in 2000.
In this film, Angie (Radha Mitchell) and two of her friends, Barbie and Judith, are expecting babies. At the beginning of the film, we see Angie help Judith deliver a healthy baby boy, and many of the first few scenes show Angie being embraced by what appears to be a very tight network of friends. Angie is even asked to be Godmother to Judith’s baby.

Initially, Angie appears to be surrounded by a close network of friends

Sadly, Angie’s own baby, Gabriel, is born perfectly healthy but dies as a result of SIDS while they are both still in hospital. Unbelievably, and without Angie’s permission, her friends immediately go to her house to help pack away the nursery furniture and clothing. We see them loading it all into a lorry in the black of night as if it’s something to be ashamed of and get rid of as soon as possible.
Not only do Angie and her husband lose their baby, their friends begin to desert them. Angie is even more alone because she’s not very close to her own mother and cannot even bring herself to reveal the sad news of Gabriel’s death during a phone call.
Angie is still eager to make a fuss of Judith’s baby, but Judith recoils at her advances, and when Angie visits Judith and finds her way to her baby’s bedroom, she shares a very special moment with him. However, Judith is openly alarmed and throws her out of the house.

Angie shares a special private moment with Judith’s newborn son

Similarly, when a heavily pregnant Barbie spots Angie shopping in a baby store, she’s very unresponsive, especially when one of her little boys asks about Gabriel. Angie is happy to show him a picture and talk about him, but Barbie sends her children out of the shop and apologizes to Angie for the questions.

Angie is more than happy to discuss Gabriel with Barbie’s children

Yet another example of the breakdown of Angie’s friendships is when Judith throws away Angie’s invitation to her baby’s Christening. However, the maid finds it in the bin and sends it anyway. It’s very sad to watch Angie walk alone towards the altar after the Godparents are asked to step forward only to realize she’s no longer needed.

Angie has no idea she is no longer Godmother to Judith’s baby

What I love about this film is, unlike some other stories of infant death, we’re not forced to watch a long scene after the death occurs. Straight away, Angie is trying to carry on with her life. She’s obviously torn apart by the death of her baby, but she tries to hold it together in an attempt to retain her identity as the person she was before he died.
I’m so glad the writers afforded her the strength to do this because, in reality, a recently bereaved mother will often behave in such a way that nobody around her would even know what she’s suffered. This is highlighted in the film when a mother at the local park is happy for Angie to hold her baby boy while she attends to another of her children. Angie is glad of the opportunity to feel “normal” in someone else’s eyes.
Some may find it disturbing to watch Angie ask to see her son’s body before calmly announcing to the morgue attendant, “That’s not my baby.” However, I’m completely satisfied with this; it shows us how much she wants her son to still be alive. That’s not disturbing…it’s just very sad.

On seeing Gabriel at the morgue, Angie denies he is her baby

This film also doesn’t waste time on a lengthy funeral scene with lamenting on-lookers or over-the-top wailing. What we witness is a very quiet minute’s worth of an almost silhouetted couple waiting to bury their child. No dialogue and no gratuitous crying…just a scene I myself can completely identify with.
Gradually, we see Angie and her husband appreciating that they still have each other and accepting that their so-called friends are more concerned with how Gabriel’s death might affect their own perfect lives than being the supportive friends we first thought them to be.
Finally, we see Angie surprised by a phone call from Judith, who quickly and bluntly admits she misdialled while trying to phone Barbie. This is bad enough, but then Angie feels she needs to tell Judith and Barbie she’s pregnant again before they will allow her back into their lives.
Angie lies to them both, amid congratulations during a three-way call, and we’re in no doubt she now realizes how shallow and untrustworthy they are. The closing shot of her face tells us Angie has learned a harsh lesson about friendship–one she will never forget.

A three-way call with Judith and Barbie reinforces Angie’s opinion of them

It’s not uncommon for women to feel empowered to make drastic changes after losing a child. They may, understandably, become far less tolerant of others due to the realization nobody at all can break them down any further than they’ve already been broken.
Fortunately for soap and serial drama producers, they already have the luxury of knowing millions of people will tune in to watch, no matter what is presented during each half-hourly or hourly slot. However, a filmmaker has only a short space of time to create something believable and watchable. Also, a film is not automatically guaranteed a loyal audience and relies heavily on its credibility as an individual piece.
Researching personal stories of loss is important, but I wonder how much is ignored because it would be too difficult to translate to film or television. It’s not easy to expose the darker, hidden thoughts that can really bring a broken heart to the surface–and to the screen–and writers often make the mistake of allowing their characters to disclose their heartbreak at every opportunity through unnecessary dialogue.
In reality a mother is likely to want to keep her darker or more painful thoughts to herself so she can at least feel in control of what she does and doesn’t share. Your innermost feelings are a very strong reminder of your love for your baby, so it’s comforting to hold them close and keep them safe for as long as possible.
When some writers get it wrong…it’s often due to their inability to get it totally right given the limitations. I, therefore, applaud the writers who strive to get it as right as they possibly can and trust in an actress’s ability to give her role the depth of emotion it merits and, in so doing, the credibility it will bring to her character.
———-
Angela Smith is a 45-year-old mother living in Kent, UK with her partner and four lovely children. She enjoys writing plays, short stories, TV/film reviews, and articles for satirical web sites.

Vanessa Loring: Pathetic or Plausible? A Matter of Perception

Juno meets Vanessa and Mark Loring
This guest post by Talia Liben Yarmush previously appeared at The Accidental Typist and is cross-posted with permission. It appears as part of our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss. 

The first few times that I saw Juno, I was unaware of any of my fertility problems. It wasn’t until April 2010, in between IVF cycles and laparoscopies, that I re-watched the film with some friends, and I viewed it through a new lens. It is a strange phenomenon how a changed circumstance in life can create an entirely different vision of the world. Or, more simply, of a film. The obvious themes of teen pregnancy – the ease and cavalier nature of it, so unplanned, so unexpected, so unwanted – resonated with me again while re-watching Juno. But I felt oddly that the characters were treated with respect. It was acknowledged that however intelligent a typical teenaged girl thinks she is; however witty and wise; however smart-assed and independent; she is never quite as smart as she thinks she is. There is still a big world, and she’s just one small person. And in this movie, at least the title character is wise enough to know that while she may not be ready to be a mother, there are those out there who would suffer unimaginable things to trade positions with her. 

What really hit me was Jennifer Garner’s character, Vanessa. In past viewings of the movie, the hopeful adoptive mother seemed somewhat desperate. Her overly enthusiastic smile. The fact that Juno’s snarky remarks would fly past her with barely any recognition. Her obsessive questioning and controlling perfectionism. When saying goodbye after meeting for the first time, Vanessa asks Juno how likely she is to go through with the adoption, and Juno says, nonchalantly, that she is going to do it. “How sure would you say you are? Like, would you say you’re 80% sure, or 90% sure?” Vanessa pushes. She was more than desperate, really. She was pathetic. She seemed to be written for the purpose of added comic relief. But as my friends laughed at her on screen, I felt sad, and angry. Maybe she is desperate, but anyone who has even considered adoption knows that it goes wrong far more often than it goes right. That Vanessa’s pushing wasn’t pathetic, but rather telling the story of a woman who had already been hurt so much. And wouldn’t you be desperate if you dreamed of being a mother your whole life, and then after trying for years to conceive were finally told that it was an impossibility? If you came so close to adopting a child, only for the birth mother to change her mind? 
Vanessa touches Juno’s stomach
Earlier in the same scene, when Juno first meets Vanessa, Juno expresses that she’s concerned about when she will have to add elastics to her pants. Vanessa says, “I think pregnancy is beautiful.” And Juno responds, “You’re lucky it’s not you.” And I twinged right along with Vanessa. I knew exactly how she felt – we would take elastic pants for the rest of our lives in exchange for that pregnancy. I knew completely this character and suddenly wondered if she was written to be laughed at, or if the writer too had a deep understanding of the heartbreak of infertility. This character was written beautifully – because she was real. Perhaps she was written so the audience would have these two vastly different interpretations. One for those who don’t understand, and one for those who do. 
Well, that last time around, I felt her heartbreak. I knew what it was like to alter my personality in an attempt to deal with my new reality. To dream and have those dreams crushed. But to keep on dreaming anyway. I understood. I only wish my pre-infertile self – the naïve and happy, baby-dreaming me – would also have known Vanessa for who she was, and not have seen her as a pathetic and comical character.
———-
Talia Liben Yarmush is a freelance writer and editor. She is also an infertile mother who writes her own blog, The Accidental Typist.

Stillbirth. Still Ignored.

Serious Trigger Warning for discussion and images of stillbirth and infant loss. 

Publicity photograph used for Peekaboo

Guest post written by Debbie Howard for our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss.
Google “stillbirth in film,” and you will see next to nothing come up about this subject matter. What does come up is very current, as people are starting to look at this a little more just now. I know of two or three films happening worldwide about this subject matter at the moment. At long last. There is a feature film called Return to Zero being made in the USA, and there was a documentary called Capturing a Short Life made in 2008 in Canada. I also saw a documentary a few years ago called Limbo Babies, very late at night on TV, and have never been able to find anything else about this since. There is little else other than my work.

I completed my short drama Peekaboo nearly two years ago, but I started writing it about three years before that. I had two friends who had experienced baby loss, one to miscarriage and one who had given her baby up for adoption. I had a dream one night that merged these two stories together; this was the beginning of Peekaboo, which is about a couple who has lost three babies to stillbirth. I wrote a first draft of the script then started researching in great detail as I developed the script. I was shocked to discover that hardly anything had been made about this subject before.

Because I had no funding to make Peekaboo, I had to crowdfund, asking for donations to help me raise the money I needed for the film. This was a blessing in disguise, because as well as raising the money, I met a great number of parents via social media who had lost babies, and I got to know some of them well. With their help, I was able to complete the film to a high standard and use two of the UK’s finest actors in the lead roles.

“A wonderfully tender and compassionate articulation of love and loss. Peekaboo unwraps the layers of grief and emotional reconciliation with heartbreaking precision and sensitivity.” –Caroline Cooper Charles, Creative England
You can watch the Peekaboo trailer here: https://vimeo.com/42260999.

I was very happy with Peekaboo when it was completed, and it was met with great acclaim from those who saw it. However, I was very disappointed with the lack of film festivals that programmed it. Compared to my previous films, this screened at far fewer festivals. The subject matter was seen as too depressing. This was very frustrating as I made the film to show people who hadn’t been through losing a baby what really happened. It told me audiences still aren’t ready to look at this. There is such a silence around baby loss. While I was in the process of making the film, many people asked me, “Why are you making a film about that?” On top of the grief that the parents have been through, there is another burden for them–to keep quiet and not upset people by mentioning their baby.

Not being one who’s put off easily, this fueled me to want to look at the subject matter again, and I felt a documentary would be more powerful. There is no one better equipped to tell stories of baby loss than the parents themselves. Due to the fantastic contacts I’d already made on Peekaboo, I had a pool of parents all very keen to take part in the film, and I started selecting the right characters and stories for Still Born, Still Loved.

Mel Scott with her son Finley
Still Born, Still Loved: The Life Within Us

Synopsis:

How do you survive when the baby you’ve been expecting for months dies before you have the chance to ever really know them? When on the day you were supposed to be bringing your baby home, you have to carry a tiny coffin and see them buried in the cold, hard ground? What happens to all the love you feel for your child? How do you move forward with your life with a heavy heart and empty arms?

This documentary goes right to the heart of the human suffering caused by the loss of a tiny life. There is no greater suffering for any parent to bear than the death of their child.

Our film is special because each of the stories within it has a powerful, life-affirming message, as the parents involved work through their suffering to accomplish something really spectacular in memory of their baby. The outcome will be uplifting and inspiring and will highlight how even the most vulnerable people can triumph in the face of adversity.

Still Born, Still Loved is a feature-length documentary, and I want it to get seen by a wide audience in cinemas and on television. I went back to our main sponsors on Peekaboo and asked if they wanted to help us get started. Through the great generosity of three women, all of whom have suffered stillbirth firsthand, and some more crowdfunding, we raised the money needed to film a very powerful pilot, which we have now completed. You can watch it here: https://vimeo.com/61217978.
Nicola Harding with her daughter Emily
An interesting question for me, when someone loses their first child, is “Can you call yourself a parent if you don’t have any children?” This is one of the questions we attempt to answer. If you ask someone what a parent is, they think of someone with one or more children, bringing up a child, caring for their needs, organising their birthday party, and tucking them into bed at night. But when you have carried a baby, spent months planning and imagining their future, gone through labour and childbirth, held your son or daughter in your arms, felt overwhelming love for your child and miss them every single day, you are definitely a parent, too. You find creative and interesting ways to spend time with your child, celebrate, and remember them.

In our film, we also use parents’ own photographs and video footage of their time spent with their babies when they were stillborn. This, of course, is both very powerful and greatly upsetting, but I feel it is important for people to really see this firsthand. It certainly makes a huge impact and shows that these babies were a real-life son or daughter to these parents who love them dearly and always will.

Christmas decorations in memory of Harriet and Felicity Morris
For more information, and to support the film or buy a copy of Peekaboo (all proceeds to Still Born, Still Loved), please contact me at debbie@bigbuddhafilms.co.uk or see our website at http://www.bigbuddhafilms.co.uk/films/documentary/still-born-still-loved/.

I’m really proud of the work we’re doing around stillbirth and baby loss, and I’m very grateful to all those who are supporting us. Together we will break the silence. 

Finley Scott in his coffin
Debbie Howard is a writer/director. She set up Big Buddha Films eight years ago and specialises in making films with a strong female voice that tackle human dilemmas and show the vulnerabilities of human existence. She is a single mum and lives in Sheffield with her two teenage children.