Poor father.....

I understand your point and to some degree even agree with it, but for this story to have had more meat to it i felt this should have been made a part of it even if it was to be a small part. The child had two parents every thing you may have liked about it would not have changed much if we saw his pain as well. There should be more father type scenes in movies, doesn't have to be a lot, but in my opinion films can move past heartache and loosing children become almost exclusively a woman's issue with films entirely. Women and there heroism can still be achieved with sometimes showing the other side where the dad feels pain also.

Emma_Rampling, I agree with your post that the movie had a different focal point and so the question of what the father went through was irrelevant. I will differ from you regarding WHAT the focal point of the movie is. Although the film allows for us to believe the focal point might be the difficulty of reintegration into society after incarceration, ALL of that changes with the revelation at the end (which wasn't so much a mystery - you had to figure something was up since it was revealed that Juliet was a doctor. The "theme" of the movie is isolation - self-imposed in the case of Juliet. The parole officer was an example of that given his separation from wife and children. This isolation is also seen with Juliet's distance from her fellow co-workers when she gets the job at the hospital. The end-revelation casts backwards a different hue onto the whole movie. Note how Juliet only begins opening up to the mute father-in-law (he himself "somewhat" isolated by the impairment) as well as to the parole officer. Because of this, I find the film much more deep than simply a social commentary on released inmates.

You said.....
The second guy on this thread said that "the focal point of this movie is the difficulty of reintegration into society" - I think that's a jump - because how much does she deserve to be reintegrated. Think of what she did to her husband - If she had told him, he could have spent time with his dying son.

To which I say, it seems as when the story should/could be a mutual one if only in part of two peoples loosing there child the focus tends to be the woman's POV. It's as if the man's anger/hurt can't be shown as it would undo/change the ending of what the are trying to say. It would not have hurt for men to have seen how the dad handled it or just how he dealt with it. It could have easily been shown him forgiving her or even being angry still, after all this time.

We all saw what she did and understood what transpired but I don't get why so many were not in the least bit interested in his side of at least a small part of what transpired with him over the years. In fact it seemed incomplete without it.

On a totally different subject this actress seems to be drawn to roles where the husband or whom ever she is with gets the short end of the stick or his scenes are left on the cutting room floor.....