So many things wrong with this film. Where to start?
The script is weak to begin with and I'm surprised that so many people worked on something that resulted in this mess.
Maybe too many cooks? Perhaps. When you see the director writing the script, you start to wonder a little, but when the lead actor has a hand in the script, it's a serious red flag.
For one, they could've cut it better. The story does not need to be linear. For example, they could've shown a flashback of Elise moving furniture out, making us think that she's moving out, only to reveal that she's making room for the baby's room. Then show us the current time of Elise really moving out. Smart editing tricks like that. Events that trigger flashbacks and past-present parallels.
Then there are inexplicable things in this film. Didier rants about the US cutting spending on stem-cell research. Elise should've just told him that the US is not obligated to save a Belgian baby or spend money on cancer research. It is their country and their money. It doesn't matter what their reasoning is, whether it is Jesus or Santa. Europe is not a third world backwater. Elise should've told Didier that if he wants to research stem cells, he should perhaps study science rather than play in a band.
The child's battle with cancer is not explored. The child faced a dead-end with treatment. We could've seen something like this:
It would be better for the film to show something like this: Child: "I'm done. I want out. I can't take this anymore.. I won't get better." Dad: "How do you know you won't get better? You don't know that." Child: "The same way you know there is no God. I just do."
Didier wants his child to keep on believing and hoping when there is no doubt that death was imminent. Show him as a hypocrite who wants the child to believe in an unrealistic and impossible future but not an afterlife. If the child shouldn't believe in a life after death then how would she believe in ever seeing an 18th birthday when science says that won't happen? Didier's hypocrisy is never explored.
The parents' blame game was not explained. When Elise screams at Didier for his family having cancer genes he says nothing. He doesn't tell her "I told you I didn't want a baby. You insisted." This is all true, so why didn't he say it? She wanted a baby with a man with cancer genes. He told her he didn't want one. How can she yell at him for the child getting cancer?
Elise, the mother, drank and smoked while she was pregnant. Didier started drinking heavily near the end of the pregnancy and when Elise was in labor. Why not show these things? Why do we get this information through dialogue?
The news shown in the background could've been handled much better. In this film we first see news of 9/11 and the war on terror, which Didier ignored. Then we see the ban on stem-cell research which incensed Didier. It's too contrived. Didier's kid gets cancer, there's no hope but stem-cell research, then he turns on the TV and guess what? Bush banned stem-cell research. What are the chances?
A better way of showing all these things is to simply rearrange them. We see the war on terror and Didier is indifferent because it doesn't affect him. We then see Bush ban stem-cell research on the news and Didier is indifferent again because his kid doesn't have cancer and this means nothing to him. Then he hears of stem- cell research and discovers that it has been halted. Then he gets angry. Then subsequent news about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq would incense him even more, than money goes to death rather than saving lives. Make him a hypocrite, make him flawed. He didn't care about the halting of stem-cell research or the wars before, now it's all he talks about.
The rearrangement would've told a better story without adding anything new.
But the film is clearly on the side of Didier, rather than a neutral look at the situation.
The conflict between secularism and atheism in this film is not linear. Didier is angry at the Catholic church and certain American denominations (condoms, abortion, stem-cell research) but takes out his anger at his wife who believes in her own religion of reincarnation (her child could come back as a bird or star). He groups all faiths together, but that makes no sense. People that believe in reincarnation of children as birds are not the ones who halted stem-cell research.
Ranting at Belgians for the actions of Americans is like screaming at Indians for Japan's actions in WWII, or ranting at a Muslim belly dancer because of the Taliban's dress code or ranting at a Belgian director about this year's Oscars. Belgians, Christians or not, had nothing to do with the election of Bush or stem-cell research.
Didier is in an imaginary war against all faiths because his daughter died and the film presents him as somewhat reasonable by not having anyone challenge his beliefs or arguments. They are presented as valid. Some religious folks in one particular country stopped stem-cell research. Other religious folks in the US did not. The rest of the world had nothing to do with it either way, especially ones that believe in reincarnation-as-birds whose religion has nothing to say about any kind of research whatsoever. China, Japan and India are also religious and have non- rational belief systems. They're still doing lots of research. Why can't he see that?
Oh, because it's not relevant to the plot.
A highly-contrived religion vs secularism story filled with massive grouping of unrelated groups together, false equivalence, collective responsibility, etc.
The script is weak to begin with and I'm surprised that so many people worked on something that resulted in this mess.
Maybe too many cooks? Perhaps. When you see the director writing the script, you start to wonder a little, but when the lead actor has a hand in the script, it's a serious red flag.
For one, they could've cut it better. The story does not need to be linear. For example, they could've shown a flashback of Elise moving furniture out, making us think that she's moving out, only to reveal that she's making room for the baby's room. Then show us the current time of Elise really moving out. Smart editing tricks like that. Events that trigger flashbacks and past-present parallels.
Then there are inexplicable things in this film. Didier rants about the US cutting spending on stem-cell research. Elise should've just told him that the US is not obligated to save a Belgian baby or spend money on cancer research. It is their country and their money. It doesn't matter what their reasoning is, whether it is Jesus or Santa. Europe is not a third world backwater. Elise should've told Didier that if he wants to research stem cells, he should perhaps study science rather than play in a band.
The child's battle with cancer is not explored. The child faced a dead-end with treatment. We could've seen something like this:
It would be better for the film to show something like this: Child: "I'm done. I want out. I can't take this anymore.. I won't get better." Dad: "How do you know you won't get better? You don't know that." Child: "The same way you know there is no God. I just do."
Didier wants his child to keep on believing and hoping when there is no doubt that death was imminent. Show him as a hypocrite who wants the child to believe in an unrealistic and impossible future but not an afterlife. If the child shouldn't believe in a life after death then how would she believe in ever seeing an 18th birthday when science says that won't happen? Didier's hypocrisy is never explored.
The parents' blame game was not explained. When Elise screams at Didier for his family having cancer genes he says nothing. He doesn't tell her "I told you I didn't want a baby. You insisted." This is all true, so why didn't he say it? She wanted a baby with a man with cancer genes. He told her he didn't want one. How can she yell at him for the child getting cancer?
Elise, the mother, drank and smoked while she was pregnant. Didier started drinking heavily near the end of the pregnancy and when Elise was in labor. Why not show these things? Why do we get this information through dialogue?
The news shown in the background could've been handled much better. In this film we first see news of 9/11 and the war on terror, which Didier ignored. Then we see the ban on stem-cell research which incensed Didier. It's too contrived. Didier's kid gets cancer, there's no hope but stem-cell research, then he turns on the TV and guess what? Bush banned stem-cell research. What are the chances?
A better way of showing all these things is to simply rearrange them. We see the war on terror and Didier is indifferent because it doesn't affect him. We then see Bush ban stem-cell research on the news and Didier is indifferent again because his kid doesn't have cancer and this means nothing to him. Then he hears of stem- cell research and discovers that it has been halted. Then he gets angry. Then subsequent news about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq would incense him even more, than money goes to death rather than saving lives. Make him a hypocrite, make him flawed. He didn't care about the halting of stem-cell research or the wars before, now it's all he talks about.
The rearrangement would've told a better story without adding anything new.
But the film is clearly on the side of Didier, rather than a neutral look at the situation.
The conflict between secularism and atheism in this film is not linear. Didier is angry at the Catholic church and certain American denominations (condoms, abortion, stem-cell research) but takes out his anger at his wife who believes in her own religion of reincarnation (her child could come back as a bird or star). He groups all faiths together, but that makes no sense. People that believe in reincarnation of children as birds are not the ones who halted stem-cell research.
Ranting at Belgians for the actions of Americans is like screaming at Indians for Japan's actions in WWII, or ranting at a Muslim belly dancer because of the Taliban's dress code or ranting at a Belgian director about this year's Oscars. Belgians, Christians or not, had nothing to do with the election of Bush or stem-cell research.
Didier is in an imaginary war against all faiths because his daughter died and the film presents him as somewhat reasonable by not having anyone challenge his beliefs or arguments. They are presented as valid. Some religious folks in one particular country stopped stem-cell research. Other religious folks in the US did not. The rest of the world had nothing to do with it either way, especially ones that believe in reincarnation-as-birds whose religion has nothing to say about any kind of research whatsoever. China, Japan and India are also religious and have non- rational belief systems. They're still doing lots of research. Why can't he see that?
Oh, because it's not relevant to the plot.
A highly-contrived religion vs secularism story filled with massive grouping of unrelated groups together, false equivalence, collective responsibility, etc.