Izzy and Tom are monsters

Shucks, I so wish I hadn't read your post, I was really looking forward to reading the book (I have not yet read the book, I have it reserved at my library) and seeing the film. Instead, I'll be thinking about what you said here while I read it. However, I can't argue that you're absolutely right - not about them being monsters, however, they're just human - but about not reporting their finding and just keeping the baby, which is a mistake. With that being said, I do know something about miscarriages, in that they mess with your mind, make you feel damaged, broken...and desperate. I'm not justifying or excusing their actions, not at all, but I can understand why they did it.

🐱🐈

And? humans make all kinds of bad and knowingly harmful choices with no malice like this.

It is part of the complexity of people.

Take adoption from war zones, or even often adoption in general. For a long time people have known that often adoptions from war zones one or both parents are often alive and the child taken under improper circumstances.

With many normal adoptions, more so of babies from the third world the mother is a minor and not in any other field of law allowed to sign away any rights, yet for adoption a 16 year old mother is often allowed to sign away rights.
Is it right to allow a 17 year old girl to sign away rights to her baby when we wont even allow people that age to sign a contract of any kind, even say to take a loan? A loan is more reversible than giving a child up for adoption. Especially given the emotional state and even possible duress they may be under?

I don't think the book justifies the actions of the main characters.

I really felt like Tom was so desperate to heal Isabel and couldn't help her, and he couldn't handle that. She was the one who was the monster. I've had a miscarriage recently (not a stillbirth), and it's a rough thing to deal with. But Isabel fell short at every opportunity. About 3/4 through the novel I just absolutely hated her. She is just horrid.

But the scenario presented in this book is just wrong. Keeping a baby that washes up because you've had some miscarriages? Dreadful.

I guess YMMV; I didn't find any sections of the book to be lacking, let alone embarrassing, just written in a very straightforward and simple way. I actually thought the prose beautiful, something that hasn't happened in a long time for me. Also, I couldn't condemn Tom and Isabel for keeping the baby. I could understand what they did, while also understanding it's wrong. It's very easy separating right and wrong in somebody else's life, but much harder in your own, especially when it comes to things that matter.

In the movie their parenthood over the girl for the next several years and was displayed before the fact of discovery that the mother was still around. This was already well into the years of the daughter thinking her parents were Izzy and Tom and at the same time both parents discovering the same. That's what's so impacting. Had they known about the mother before taking the child in, they would have been more on the "monster" scale. Upon finding the child they began living that fantasy for the following years until Weisz shows up. In a way it's presented a lot better in the film than in the book, especially with regards to the performances.

You talk about the book which I didn't read so I have my opinion based on the movie:
I think what makes it a (beautiful) tragedy is that there are no real bad guys in the story.

I think when we judge Isabell we have to consider she was in unimaginable emotional pain in the first place. She not only lost two children but probably was trying to process that most likely she would never be able to have one. They could never become a „real” family. Then out of the blue a baby appears who doesn’t seem to belong to anyone. When not just your ’soul’ but your body, your hormones were all making you ready to become a mother. No woman could just set that aside. It must have felt to her like a miracle, a gift of god or faith. It’s just too much of a coincide to see it as random if you were in Isabel’s shoes. And it’s not like they stole/kidnap her, they found her, for god’s sake, it’s hardly the same thing. They didn’t actually know whether or not the baby had a family but Isabel chose not to risk when they got what they longed for. Not to risk the baby landing in an orphanage, or stuck with unfit parents. And yes, not to risk finding out she had blood relatives. As in situations as this people more often choose the alternative which is in their best interest to believe in so she chose not to think about the real family/relatives.

I think Tom first partly due to his solder past felt it as his duty to report, also he was portrayed as a „good man” so he felt it was the righteous thing to do. But he loved Isabel who in the movie seemed to be a kind and joyful person and made him alive again but who has been suffering terribly lately. Not because she “had him under the thumb” but because they loved each other he wandted to see her happy, make her happy. At that point they didn’t know if there was somebody that would miss the baby so he gave in. But when it became clear that Lucy is in fact Grace and he saw Hannah’s pain he felt regret for her. He wanted to make her feel better so he wrote the letter and later when his guilt got stronger he sent the toy. Isabel anger at him was because she felt betrayed that their family, their happy life together as a family wasn’t on the top of Tom’s list as it should have been. Guess Tom could see the situation more clearly as he didn’t go through as much intense emotions as Isabel. With time Isabel realized and accepted why Tom did what he did that’s why she told the truth at last.

All three of the main characters were vulnerable, and I guess you can see it as Isabel and Tom didn’t made the right decision when they were in a state of grief by keeping the baby but that doesn't make them monsters in the context of the story. Their losses, their desires, their weaknesses and mistakes what makes all three of them very much human.

I think if someone simplifies the story so that they just should have reported the baby and by not doing so they are awful people (or even monsters) then he/she didn’t understand what was the story about. He/she probably didn’t really understand their MOTIVATIONS, their struggles, their feelings – their story. Maybe it’s because the book was lame or for some or other reason they just can’t begin to understand what it feels like to be a mother or to want something so much it hurts or they just enjoy judging the characters to feel superior or whatever.
However the movie is a good drama: it doesn’t miss the moral complexity or depth if you feel with the characters. If you can’t that’s just your loss.

Our GREENLIGHTReviews critics had mixed reviews for this film. Ann Elder thought that this asked important moral questions that made you think about your own moral choices. However, Les Roberts was uncomfortable with this these questions, so he didn't enjoy the film as much as Ann. However, they agree about much of the beautiful cinematography and acting performances, so they think it has a chance at the Oscars. For further analysis, listen to their full review:

https://www.thefrontporchpeople.com/greenlightreviews/the-light-between-oceans