Kramer vs. Kramer

---

The movie depicts the realistic devastation a divorce can have on the upbringing of a child. There are no bad guys in the film. Even though Meryl Streep’s character leaves her child, the justification of it always seems reasonable because we were never shown what she dealt with throughout those 8 years of her marriage. One thing I took from the film is that court proceedings in divorce are never cut and dry so as to expect yes or no answers from the mother or the father. Lawyers will always attempt to use a simple stroke of bad luck against the parent in demonstration of the parent’s negligence, which is not always as black and white as they would like to make it seem. Split custody always needs to be considered for the sake of the child’s health because the pain is too much to bear for each parent in deciding who deserves the child more. We are each an individual human being with wants and desires and if we forget that, it can be too easy to think of each other as a monster with no morals.

Streep’s character inhabits this theory with her portrayal of a burnt out mother who finally had some time to collect herself and get some therapy for her sense of inferiority. The film doesn’t stigmatize mental health issues even as Dustin Hoffman’s character tries to use it as a defense against her ability to adequately take care of their son. Her reasoning for seeking mental health to not hinder her chances of custody over her son is beautifully argued. A mother, or any person for that matter, should not be punished for seeking medical help much like an amputee wouldn’t be looked at as incapable of providing for their child. It was her courage to seek this help and it has benefitted her tremendously, making her a better person than she was before, and, in fact, enabling her to take care of Billy.