The film “In America,” directed by Jim Sheridan, tells the story of one family’s illegal immigration to America. Based loosely on the directors own life, it was co-written by Sheridan, and his two daughters, Naomi and Kristen Sheridan. As such, it is a uniquely authentic vision of the lives of these characters, and has many fascinating representations of Socialization and Human Development. The family is made up of four members: father Johnny, an aspiring actor, mother Samantha, a teacher forced to work at an ice cream parlour, as well as daughters Christy, 10, and Ariel, 6. Briefly seen, but casting a large shadow over the film and family is Frankie, the deceased son, dead at age 5 of a brain tumour caused by a traumatic fall at age two. The family is befriended by their downstairs neighbour, Mateo, a somewhat mystical African-American artist dying of AIDS. This paper will discuss three main areas wherein the film is influenced by SHD, familial interactions, responses to immigration, and difficulties with poverty.
The family undergoes several difficulties to stay in America. Their first issue is financial. As they are not legally allowed to work, they have to sell the family car to afford rent on a run down, seedy and somewhat dangerous looking apartment. Samantha has to take a low paying job at an ice cream parlour, and Johnny eventually has to take on a job as a cabbie by night while auditioning for acting jobs in the day. What is interesting at the list of Risk Factors Associated with Poverty (McDevitt, and Ormrod pgs. 559-560) do not seem to apply. The list concerns itself with poor nutrition and heath care, which did not seem to be a concern for the family. Eventually the character of Mateo has to bail them out of a health care related problem, but otherwise this does not seem to be a day-to-day issue. Inadequate housing is next on the list, and while the family lives in a dangerous-looking apartment, they have a huge space to live in, with a private bedroom for the daughters, and a living room large enough for them to use as a roller skating rink. As well, the younger daughter Ariel befriends everyone in the neighbourhood, and it seems much less dangerous after that. There was no evidence of gaps in background knowledge when the girls went to school – indeed, school was such a non-issue in this movie it is hard to discuss. There was also no indication that they had an increased probability of disabling conditions, and any emotional stress in the family was not related to their poverty. Lower quality schools were not an issue either, being illegal immigrants in the country, the girls were sent to Catholic School. It seems that poverty, while a big part of their lives, was not the main focus of this family and their problems.
Another area that shows strong representations of SHD is in how the family deals with immigration to the United States. It is apparent through the film that “Cultural and ethnic differences often become salient when people move from one cultural environment to another – for instance, when they immigrate to a new country.” (McDevitt and Ormrod pg. 543) The family struggles with several differences living in Manhattan. American culture seems quite alien to them in many regards – the drug users, prostitution, and violence that surround them are far removed from the idyllic suburban life they lived previously, seen briefly in Christy’s videos. They are surrounded by people from diverse cultures and backgrounds, but they are still seen as outsiders, nicknamed “Irish,” or called “Fighting Irish.” It seems that in school Ariel and Christy are outsiders (while this is not directly seen, there is NO mention of any friends, peers, or playmates that the children met at school.) There is a brief reference to assimilation, when Ariel uses the world “cool” to describe the new apartment’s impressive locking system, Christy reprimands her, saying, “You’re American already, it’s disgusting.” While an Irish to American immigration experience might not have been as traumatic or difficult as it can be for other cultures (i.e. the language is the same, they are not visible minorities etc.), there are still profound difficulties for this family.
The preponderance of representations of SHD comes about in the film’s examination with family life. This is not surprising, as the family is the focus of the film. “The family is at the center of most children’s lives. It is essentially a “headquarters” from which children get love, guidance, support, and resources they need to tackle life’s many tasks and challenges.” (McDevitt and Ormrod pg. 448) The majority of the film focuses on how the family interacts with one another. In this film, the family is so much the centre of the children’s lives they seem to have little time for peers, friends, or school. There are only two scenes in the film devoted to the children’s school time, and in neither of these scenes do the children interact in any way with their peers. The loss of Frankie is at the core of what is affecting this family, and it can be seen primarily in the father, Johnny. The children complain early in the film that Johnny no longer plays with them. His attempts at playing game wherein blindfolded he seeks out the children, giant style almost ends in disaster when he calls out “Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of an Irishman,” and he realizes he was looking for his deceased son. After Frankie’s death, he has become a shell of his former self, saying, “I asked Him (god) a favour. I asked Him to take me instead of him (Frankie). Instead he took the both of us, and look what he left in my place… I can’t laugh, I can’t cry, I can’t FEEL!” The change in the father is felt by the children. When Ariel wakes up form a bad dream, Johnny attempts to console her, but she does not recognise him, refusing to believe the shell before her is her once playful, loving father. Later, when he condescendingly asks “Are you okay little girl?” to Christy regarding her decision to donate blood to newly born Sarah, he is told “Don’t little girl me. I have been carrying this family on my back for over a year.” The book discusses this behaviour: “Others are so overwhelmed by crises in their own lives … that they have little time of energy to devote to their children.” (McDevitt and Ormrod pg. 474) In the end, it is Christy (assisted by Frankie) who is able to save her father, thus saving the family, showing the reciprocal nature of family influence. “…the socialization of children involves reciprocal influences, whereby children and their parents simultaneously affect one another’s behaviours and so mutually create the environment in which they all live.” (McDevitt and Ormrod pg. 477) It is Christy who is finally able to get her father to say goodbye to Frankie, and allow the family to move on as a whole unit. Christy shows many characteristics of resiliency, and is in many ways the strongest, most whole and complete member of the family. “The term resiliency refers to the ability of many children and adolescents to beat the odds and succeed in school and life despite exceptional hardships such as poverty or parental maltreatment. Resilient youngsters usually have one or more individuals in their lives whom they trust and know they can turn to in difficult times.” (McDevitt and Ormrod pg. 561) Obviously, the character of Mateo, at first seen as a frightening, angry presence, is working to help provide Christy, and indeed the whole family, with this resiliency. Mateo becomes the children’s playmate, replacing the father, and it is Mateo who both Johnny Samantha confide in. Mateo not only pays for the exorbitant hospital bill the family has incurred for Sarah’s birth and care, but it is also Mateo who, in one of several scenes that hint at the magical-realistic nature of this film, allows Sarah to wake up and show signs of life. It is though Mateo passes on his life to Sarah (who is named Sarah Mateo in his honour.) Not only do the children affect the parents, but the outside force of Mateo affects them as will, showing how “… both parents and children grow and change, often in response to people and events outside the family context, and their relationships continue to be defined over time.” (McDevitt and Ormrod pg. 478)
The film allowed us to understand that as children grow older, they become increasing attuned to and interested in the mental life of those around them. They gradually learn that people have thoughts, feelings, and motives different from their own and that such thoughts, feelings, and motives can be complex and at times contradictory. They also become increasingly skilled in taking the perspectives of those around them: They can imagine how other people must think and feel and begin to empathize with those who are suffering or in need. For example, when Mateo dies from his illness and Ariel’s feelings are left unanswered as she was unable to say goodbye to her friend, this represented how parents are confronted on a daily basis with issues that they are sometimes faced with unexpectedly. It raises such important questions as: How can teachers learn to recognize when there are family issues and how to help those who are need of assistance? What can teachers do to help promote equity and social differences within the classroom so that those students do not feel subjected to ridicule/discriminated? What roles do teachers play, i.e. teacher, parent, counsellor? What teaching strategies can teacher use to incorporate more inclusionary practices in their lessons and classroom environment? When is it a good time to discuss and talk about death in a classroom? All of these issues make is a fascinating document of Socialization and Human Development.
References
Lappin, Arthur. (Producer), & Sheridan. (Director). (2002). In America [Motion picture]. Los Angles, CA: Fox Searchlight.
McDevitt, Teresa M, Jeanne Ellis Ormrod (2004). Child Development and Education. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
