My thing is that they don't tell you what disease the kid had. If you don't know what it is, how can you know that it was bad enough that it would have been reasonable for her to kill him? I don't know. It kinda sounded like she jumped the gun.
TOTES MAGOTES!
His illness isn't the point and is irrelevant to the theme which is the sisters, their seperation and learning to accept each other in their lives once again.
That's why the audience never learns what the illness is. Juliette has already been judged.
[deleted]
"Also, I got the notion that she didn't really go through with the euthanasia anyway; he simply died, because his illness had gotten to its worst point, and by the time she woke up the next day her son was already dead."
Well your notion is completely wrong!
My guess would be Amytropic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's Disease). The other guess would be Huntington's Chorea (what killed Woody Guthrie). Both are genetic and both render the sufferer ultimately unable to control normal body processes such as movement, speech and in the end, even breathing. Both are ultimately fatal.
shareSaw this awesome film last night. Wonderful.
I too had a difficulty with the premise - that an MD with a child with a crippling and fatal disease would be imprisoned for 15 years for performing euthanasia on her own child.
I was reminded that times were different 15 years ago, perhaps it could be my own attitude towards euthanasia? Is this something that would be much more acceptable (and understood) by a European audience rather than this US person?
... just curious ....
i just saw the film this am and had exactly the same question, although, in the us it would probably be life-without-parole, and why did she say she kidnapped her son, and why did her husband testify against her? was he jealous of her because she finished med school and he dropped out?
shareShe said she kidnapped her son because she probably made a unilateral decision without discussing it with her husband. The point is that she DID kidnap her son and she DID commit premeditated murder, and it perhaps doesn't matter (though I would disagree) that there were mitigating circumstances.
I doubt her husband's alleged feelings of inadequacy had anything to do with it.
Both the social worker and Leah are frustrated with Juliette for not explaining herself. The implication is that she was so distraught and in so much pain that she didn't make any effort nor did she see any reason to defend herself in her trial. To outside observers, her distance and alienation come across as frigidity and lack of remorse, so she may have been judged as taking the decision to end her son's life very lightly.
i have an issue about the big reveal too. it was obvious from the beginning. and missed an opportunity to actually discuss euthanasia
shareThat's great nubbytubbytiatchesgalore. you basically wanted a different film - one about euthanasia
sharethat's great, who ever in the hell you are. you basically wanted a different conversation - one happening four years ago
eta - and though it may have been four years since i've seen this, i'm pretty sure the film is, in part, about euthanasia. so no, i didn't want a different film. i wanted this film to simply elaborate on a very essential aspect of the story by giving more background.
Just because they don't reveal to the viewer what it was, that doesn't mean she didn't know what it was. She was a Doctor after all. It's really irrelevant what it was. I got from it that she is a medical Doctor who has run tests herself after suspecting something from the symptoms. She's knows once the tests come back and obviously knows the road her son is going to take from there, hence her decision.
share