The most problematic aspect of what was shown in the film during the trial was that there was a system of adversarial dispute resolution between an ex-husband and an ex-wife. The adversarial system has many advantages, especially in criminal proceedings. The first is that «the right to confront one`s accuser», enshrined in the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, is better exercised . But even the weakest husband-wife relationships should ideally not be called adversarial (unless they are criminal charges). This is because the lawyers` attention is shifting from discussing the merits of the case in relation to the law to defaming litigants. Because as difficult as Kramer vs. Kramer can be accepted as a divorce movie — both from a legal standpoint and from our imbalance of sympathy for Kramer — it is often exceptionally beautiful as a story about a father who learns to have a real relationship with his son. Ted doesn`t know how to set limits at first, so Billy tests them in a big scene where he refuses to eat yet another televised dinner and goes straight to the ice cream in the freezer, which his father dares to carry out on a threat to punish him. All Ted can do is yell faintly at the child («I hate you, little!») Like bad parents do because their children have no idea what to expect from them. Fifteen months later, Joanna introduces herself and tells Ted that she has «found herself» and is now ready to take care of her child.
Ted is looking for a lawyer and his lawyer does not mince words; He tells her that without a job, he has no chance of winning. The lawyer bluntly advises him (and helpful, one might add) to find a job within 24 hours. The very goal of legal systems around the world is to ensure that our dispute resolution procedures are simple, accessible and beneficial to all parties, while maintaining a certain degree of objectivity and fairness throughout the process. The legal drama between Ted and Joanna in the film completely lacks those elements that make any legal system reliable and credible. Overall, fault has resulted in simpler and cheaper divorces, which has both streamlined the legal system and allowed for a higher divorce rate. Although the law is not specifically relevant in Kramer v. Kramer – which forces parties to fight hard in court – reflects a culture shift in which women, in particular, have been better able to leave unhappy marriages and achieve self-realization. It didn`t lessen the stigma of a mother leaving a child behind, as Joanna Kramer (Streep) does here, nor did it undermine social prejudices that women care for their children better than men, which ultimately hurt Ted Kramer (Hoffman) in court. But when the film came out, such things were hotly debated.
Viewers are certainly free to blame the characters in Kramer vs. Kramer, as they currently are about the characters of Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story, who have an equally yellowish view of the legal process. And at first glance — and perhaps at glance, for some — Benton`s film is extremely lopside-balanced in favor of Ted, a workaholic publicist who takes care of his son Billy (Justin Henry) while Joanna quietly but firmly walks out. Joanna only appears near the beginning and end of the film, and in the 18 months between her departure and her return in search of Billy`s sole custody, we only see scenes in which father and son are connected. In terms of public sympathy, she never stands a chance. In upstate New York, child custody analysis is in the best interests of the child. Several factors must be taken into account, such as the wishes of the child, the ability to provide for the emotional and intellectual development of the child, the quality of the family environment and parental counselling, the financial stability of the parties and the ability of the parents to maintain a relationship with the other parent. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 436 N.E.2d 1260 (1982). The fact that a parent is male or female should not favour or discriminate against him or her when determining custody.
Ted perfectly embodies the problems inherent in our legal system when his lawyer asks him to list the pros and cons of pursuing the case against Joanna for custody of his child. There was no entry in the «Advantages» column, while there were many in the «Disadvantages» column, which included: «Money», «No privacy», «Work affected» and «No social life». While these are very legitimate concerns for any litigant, they draw attention to other issues in our legal systems that need to be highlighted and addressed. Moreover, the role of the court in respecting gender norms by assigning certain roles to men and women is an example of outdated thinking and arbitrariness that is judiciously dismantled by the film. The emphasis on ideas such as «motherhood,» where women have the exclusive ability to care for their children in some way, has been refuted by showing the public that men can care for the child with the right level of intention and care traditionally expected of a woman. This is expressed in a very moving way in the film. At the beginning of the film, Ted is unable to make a French toast for Ben, but when Ben is ready to go see his mother after she wins the case, Ted does just fine. This shows us that change is possible and that the rigid legal system must be reformed to take into account the possibility of change. I`m not going to tell you the ending, because I don`t want to ruin the movie if you haven`t seen it. I would like to give some insights into two cultural and legal issues of divorce at this time.
The classic movie Kramer vs. Kramer, starring Oscar winners Meryl Streep Dustin Hoffman and Justin Henry, depicts the struggles of an American couple fighting for custody of their only child, caught between their parents` marital problems. While the film shows the struggle between two adults and the pain and suffering they inflict on their child, it also poses a broader and more socially relevant question: Is our legal system hindering justice instead of guaranteeing it? This interpretation would be wrong for many reasons, but it should be noted that legal experts were also confused about it at the time. In fact, Felice K. Shea, then a sitting justice of the New York State Supreme Court, lamented in a New York Times poll of four lawyers the week the film was released: «It`s unfortunate that the legal profession was portrayed as being 50 years behind. In many ways, the trial has been described as insensitive, unrealistic and incomplete. And by that calculation, Kramer vs. Kramer seems to be nearly a century old, ending with a custody judgment and resolution that are confusing for two loving parents living in the same city. Over the next 18 months, we see Ted and Billy settle into a routine, but Ted`s work suffers from stress at home. When Joanna returns after finding a new well-paying career and therapist, and demands custody of her son, they find themselves in the brutal legal battle that gives the film its title. As their respective lawyers sink into surprising troughs to fight over their custody case, Ted and Joanna are shocked by their lawyers` brutality towards each other. Vanessa Ruiz, «The Role of Women Judges and a Gender Perspective in Ensuring the Independence and Integrity of the Judiciary.
(Ruiz 2019) «, 8 January 2019, UNODC www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/01/the-role-of-women-judges-and-a-gender-perspective-in-ensuring-judicial-independence-and-integrity.html Today, there is no Hays Code. Instead, films since 1968 have been classified according to the following system: G for general audience, M for adult content, R for restricted (under 17 not allowed without adults), and NC-17 (originally X) for sexually explicit content.