I think this movie raises some interesting questions, worthy of a discussion. That being said, it provides few answers.
In the beginning of the film, we see some bonding between the mother Isabelle (Julie Delpy) and her daughter Zoe. However, as a viewer, one can already start to see that the mother is slightly unhinged. Her soon-to-be ex-husband James (Richard Armitage) picks up Zoe for an afternoon, and instead of concentrating on work, she spends the day obsessing over what they're doing together. At no point during this film does one get the impression that Zoe is less-than-safe with her father, but he seems to be constantly treated as a second-class citizen. Whatever happened between Isabelle and James is never fully addressed (something about how she felt after having a kid and how she felt he perceived her after that--seems like nothing a marriage counselor could not help them work through if they were BOTH stable), but she can't seem to let go of her bitterness long enough to quit copter-parenting and sniping her ex every chance she gets. This type of behavior does not endear her character to the audience. The "woe-is-me-I'm-a-single-mother-now" trope has been done to death, and this was not even a good portrayal of it.
I did not understand the point of her new boyfriend, who was portrayed by Brunette #49-dilly-2. He serves no real purpose, other than just being an extra in scenes with a woman who seems incapable of being alone with her own thoughts for five minutes.
Zoe's father James seems to gain all of the sympathy in the movie (hopefully this was done on purpose). I wish they would have allowed more lines and character development for his role, because Richard Armitage is truly a force of nature in front of the camera. He convinces the audience early on of his lingering love for Isabelle (unstable though she is), and his devotion to their daughter.
Halfway through this movie, Zoe dies tragically, though not entirely unexpectedly at that point. The father's grief is practically tangible, while the mother remains wooden, armed with a plan and a tissue sample of her late daughter. She heads off to Russia with no explanation, abandoning her ex when they should have been grieving together over their joint loss. She does not even tell/ask her ex about this crazy plan of hers, which definitely involves him (Zoe was half-his, remember?). In Russia, she approaches a scientist who is leading the field in cloning technology, begging him to help her. After much hem-hawing, he reluctantly agrees. Insanity.
I understand the woman has just experienced a tremendous loss and is at the end of her tether, but let's examine how crazy this is. First, the scientist could end up not only losing his livelihood (he is a husband and father also), but he could even face criminal charges if he was discovered to be party to unsanctioned human cloning. So, is she selfish? Without a doubt. Her loss is the most important and trumps all others. Second, as the scientist is attempting to dissuade her from pursuing cloning, he exhibits a picture which one can only imagine is a tragically deformed puppy. Would a good mother truly risk creating a short-lived experiment born knowing nothing but unimaginable pain and confusion? No, but this woman would. Third, many parents lose children; they have to live with the pain, emptiness and grief. They are not so overly-privileged that they can create an exact replica of the child they lost, which brings me to the biggest point of all: this clone is only identical to Zoe physically. She is not the same little girl; she will have her own personality and quirks. So, going to all of this absurd expense, effort and time with all the possible collateral damage and even danger, all to get a child that looks like Zoe, but is not Zoe? Worth it? No, yet this woman does it.
At the end of the movie, time has passed since Zoe 2.0's birth, and Isabelle introduces her to James, who surprisingly seems amazed/happy to meet her (this is probably the most unbelievable part of the entire film, which is saying something). A grieving father who had neither consented nor had comprehensive knowledge about his ex-wife's deranged scheme...would act happy? I feel like the most realistic response would be horror, a renewal of grief, perhaps even anger.
One last note: how would a child feel when they discover the only reason for their existence is to be an exact replacement of their mother's firstborn? Talk about causing a child some serious psychological problems. Oh, the therapy bills would cause one to drown in debt, wouldn't they?
After watching this movie, I wish Isabelle would have never had a kid at all and saved me an hour and a half of my life. Six stars for Richard Armitage solely.
In the beginning of the film, we see some bonding between the mother Isabelle (Julie Delpy) and her daughter Zoe. However, as a viewer, one can already start to see that the mother is slightly unhinged. Her soon-to-be ex-husband James (Richard Armitage) picks up Zoe for an afternoon, and instead of concentrating on work, she spends the day obsessing over what they're doing together. At no point during this film does one get the impression that Zoe is less-than-safe with her father, but he seems to be constantly treated as a second-class citizen. Whatever happened between Isabelle and James is never fully addressed (something about how she felt after having a kid and how she felt he perceived her after that--seems like nothing a marriage counselor could not help them work through if they were BOTH stable), but she can't seem to let go of her bitterness long enough to quit copter-parenting and sniping her ex every chance she gets. This type of behavior does not endear her character to the audience. The "woe-is-me-I'm-a-single-mother-now" trope has been done to death, and this was not even a good portrayal of it.
I did not understand the point of her new boyfriend, who was portrayed by Brunette #49-dilly-2. He serves no real purpose, other than just being an extra in scenes with a woman who seems incapable of being alone with her own thoughts for five minutes.
Zoe's father James seems to gain all of the sympathy in the movie (hopefully this was done on purpose). I wish they would have allowed more lines and character development for his role, because Richard Armitage is truly a force of nature in front of the camera. He convinces the audience early on of his lingering love for Isabelle (unstable though she is), and his devotion to their daughter.
Halfway through this movie, Zoe dies tragically, though not entirely unexpectedly at that point. The father's grief is practically tangible, while the mother remains wooden, armed with a plan and a tissue sample of her late daughter. She heads off to Russia with no explanation, abandoning her ex when they should have been grieving together over their joint loss. She does not even tell/ask her ex about this crazy plan of hers, which definitely involves him (Zoe was half-his, remember?). In Russia, she approaches a scientist who is leading the field in cloning technology, begging him to help her. After much hem-hawing, he reluctantly agrees. Insanity.
I understand the woman has just experienced a tremendous loss and is at the end of her tether, but let's examine how crazy this is. First, the scientist could end up not only losing his livelihood (he is a husband and father also), but he could even face criminal charges if he was discovered to be party to unsanctioned human cloning. So, is she selfish? Without a doubt. Her loss is the most important and trumps all others. Second, as the scientist is attempting to dissuade her from pursuing cloning, he exhibits a picture which one can only imagine is a tragically deformed puppy. Would a good mother truly risk creating a short-lived experiment born knowing nothing but unimaginable pain and confusion? No, but this woman would. Third, many parents lose children; they have to live with the pain, emptiness and grief. They are not so overly-privileged that they can create an exact replica of the child they lost, which brings me to the biggest point of all: this clone is only identical to Zoe physically. She is not the same little girl; she will have her own personality and quirks. So, going to all of this absurd expense, effort and time with all the possible collateral damage and even danger, all to get a child that looks like Zoe, but is not Zoe? Worth it? No, yet this woman does it.
At the end of the movie, time has passed since Zoe 2.0's birth, and Isabelle introduces her to James, who surprisingly seems amazed/happy to meet her (this is probably the most unbelievable part of the entire film, which is saying something). A grieving father who had neither consented nor had comprehensive knowledge about his ex-wife's deranged scheme...would act happy? I feel like the most realistic response would be horror, a renewal of grief, perhaps even anger.
One last note: how would a child feel when they discover the only reason for their existence is to be an exact replacement of their mother's firstborn? Talk about causing a child some serious psychological problems. Oh, the therapy bills would cause one to drown in debt, wouldn't they?
After watching this movie, I wish Isabelle would have never had a kid at all and saved me an hour and a half of my life. Six stars for Richard Armitage solely.