MovieChat Forums > Waitress (2007) Discussion > Why this movie let me down.

Why this movie let me down.

posted 15 years ago by witcheemon
5 replies | jump to latest

After reading a lot of people's arguments on both sides of the field, I realised that no one here really accurately got to the heart of why this film made my insides die. Because the overarching message of this whole film was that "The only love that can conquer all is the love that a mother has for her child.", and because I could not empathise with the character.

Let me say straight off the bat, before people make choice assumptions, who I am. I am a tertiary educated 20 year old female, supporting myself with a full time job in a lovely neighbourhood in Queensland, Australia. I am in a loving relationship with my live-in boyfriend. I have decided that now, and possibly for the rest of my life, I will remain too selfish to give birth to a child and give it the best I can, so I will not have children. I didn't get along well with my mother. She never mistreated me, but moving out was one of the best things in my life.

What I saw in this movie was a woman in an awful situation. She was married to an abusive man. She had female friends, but they seemed inclined to think that there was no reason for her to leave him. So she had no support network there. She was having an affair with her doctor, out of sheer loneliness and a desire to be loved. And she resented the child inside of her.

After all is said and done, you know the ending was not realistic. Not by any means. In the real world? She would have given birth to that child. Told her husband to jump off a cliff? She still might have done it. But she never would have received that money. I just HATED the way the writer coincided this woman's good fortune with the birth of a child. Children don't solve problems, they create new ones. It's as old fashioned as saying things are different once you marry your partner. It's just a ceremony and a piece of paper, it's not a magic ritual making you better people.

The other thing that bugged me about this woman is that she was never ALONE. She probably should have left the husband, but I understand how hard it is in that situation. But once she had her child, she was ready to drop both the husband and the doctor, because she had a new source of love. That to me wasn't triumphant, but still just a little selfish. She wasn't a strong female role model. She was playing to a weak stereotype.

I hope the people on this board can understand where I'm coming from before they drive a pickaxe into my skull. If you want to justify why you like this movie, please do so. If you want to echo my sentiments, please do so. But if you come in here to tell me that my perception is wrong, the door is behind you. Perception is what you make it. :)

[–] ness-barlow 15 years ago

Sometimes you just have to remember it's a film. Maybe they were gonna end it and she had nothing, or stayed with her abusive husband, but who wants to watch that? We watch films to escape reality, not to watch it. So of course it ended happily.

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

I'm afraid that the OP has missed the point of 'Waitress'. The film was NEVER meant to be realistic in any way, shape or form. It is a pure fairy-tale from start to finish. In the real world Jenna would have never have had her problems solved by the 'magic wand' of Joe's cheque. In the movie everything turned out OK for her, but only because he served as her 'fairy godmother'. As for Jenna's behaviour being 'selfish' after she gave birth, I am at a loss to understand her reasoning. Jenna was selfish BEFORE she became a mother. She endangered the relationship of her Doctor with their affair and she considered 'selling' her child to fund a new life. However, after she gave birth she found the strength to stand up to her abusive husband because she had the responsibilty of protecting her daughter.

For the record, I am a single, childless male in his 40's. I have no immediate plans to breed any rug-rats, and I do not perceive it likely that I would find anyone to assist me in this endevour even if I did. However, I must take issue with the comment 'having a child does not solve problems, it creates them'. In many cases, this is sadly true. In other cases it is clearly false. There are many people with substance abuse problems who have cleaned up their act because they now have the responsibility of looking after their children. Of course, there are also an unfortunate many who do not, and pass their problems on to the next generation.

'Waitress' does not preach that the solution to Jenna's problems was to become a mother, it illustrates that Jenna's salvation lay in putting others before herslf. The courage that she displayed when protecting her child from Earl was the act that led to her own redemption. Of course, some women DO become mothers for selfish reasons and this is to be condemned. However, it should be clear to even the most casual observer that Jenna is not one of these womem. It is deeply irresponsible for medical science to assist little old ladies of 65 or 70 to knock out kids if a vain effort to recreate their long-lost youth. These children are often left orphaned while they are still in pre-school. On the subject of employing pregnancy in an effort to 'stabilise' a violent or abusive partner, I have only one thing to say. A child that has been brought into the world in order to 'fix' a broken relationship will face a huge burden of expectation from both parents. God help them if (and when) those expectations are dashed...

[–] blacknyellowsquid 15 years ago

I don't want kids either. Noo. But I kinda got where the movie was coming from. She finally had someone else to care for instead of wallowing in her own misery and got that boost of incentive and love to change her life. something like that. The only other thing she had SEMI going for her was that doctor, but he was married so that was strained and not fulfilling either. Maybe if this was a different movie, she would have met some hot unattached dude who instilled love and kindness and then whisked her away. But nah, that's not what it was.

I am surprised that I enjoyed this movie. I remember seeing commercials before thinking it looked really lame, pie chick flick kind of thing. But as I watched tonight, I was like "ooh I like this for some odd reason." It was kind of escape from reality but with enough reality in it to keep me interested.

The ONLY thing I found hard to swallow, though. I know it's not reality and had a whimsy at its ending...but obviously she renovated Joe's pie store and made it her own, etc. So that means she lived in the same town. Wouldn't she run in to Earl every day? Wtf? That would be awkward. Or are we supposed to assume he moved? That just seemed weird, that she stayed in the same town. I get they wanted to be cute that she got ownership of that old guy's store, etc...but...that was a bit too odd for me. Even if Earl wasn't being all harassing and stalker-y because he's so put out and pissed and 'abandoned' feeling that his possession/wife left him...(which I think would be likely)...she'd still bump into him often, wouldn't she?

Anyway...

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Adrienne Shelly wrote 'Waitress' as a fairy-tale set in the modern world. Hence, when Jenna faced Earl down and broke the 'spell' (the fear) he had over her, he vanished from her life. Earl evaporated in a figurative puff of smoke, just like the Demon King or the Wicked Witch would do.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]