Resume of a movie (Kramer v. Kramer)

Hello Everybody !

I'm a little desperate, I need a little help.. I have a resume to do for tomorrow and it's 70% of my final grade so I really want it to be as good as possible. Unfortunately my level is English is not that good. I was juste wondering if someone could read my little resume and correct the big mistakes.. I know it's a lot to ask but it will really help me ..

Thanks a lot for all of you who will respond to me

Kramer vs. Kramer is a 1979 American drama film adapted from a novel written by Avery Corman. The film tells the story of a married couple's divorce and its impact on everyone involved, especially the couple's young son, Billy. The women married to a workaholic decides to leave him saying that she needs to find herself to discover the unrealized person she left behind when she went into the marriage. So she walk out on her home and child. After some difficulties, we can see the father and son learning about each other and growing closer. The mother finally returns, determined to get back the custody of her son. Therefore follows a battle for custody of the child.

In this film takes place a trial, the mother and the father go to the courts to have the custody of the child. At the time it was not current for a father fighting for custody of his child, the custody goes almost always automatically to the mother. This movie deals with the issue of the paternity, it asked some questions such as if a father could be as good for a child than his mother ? Or as the father said “is a woman a better parent simply by virtue of her sex?” we can notice the change about the idea of fatherhood.

At first, even before the trial the father's counsel told his client that it will not be an easy case even if it's the mother who runs away from the home. The simple fact that the mother is the boy's biological mother is supposed to outweigh, in court, any particularities of their individual case. And on the basis of this argument the court finally grants custody to the mother.

During the trial we can see that the lawyer of each party has prepared a series of questions to be asked to their client and to the opposition, all question aimed to show that the child would be better with their client, they tried to set forth all the qualities of their client and all the drawbacks of the other parents. The questions asked by the two attorney to the parties includes the amount of their income which seems to be an important fact or even the current relationship. In France, the questions of the income of the parent is not that important as long as they can provide health to the child.

The film accurately portrays the tactics used to gain damaging information against the other parent and how the parent is ambushed by that revelation during the custody proceeding.

The two lawyer are being aggressive with each other's clients, they asked very personal questions, insisting to obtained the answers they want. Also during the trial we can notice that the lawyers can raise an “objection” after the opposing party asks a question to the witness, before the witness answer it. The judge so appreciate the relevance of the question in the case. Indeed, the judge can “overruled” the objection or “sustained” it, in that case the judge agrees with the lawyer and disallows the question, in the other case, the judge disagrees with the objection and the witness has to answer the question. In France, during a trial a lawyer cannot object a question asked to a witness or to his client even if he thinks that the question is not relevant in the case. The possibility to object a question can be explained by the fact that in Anglo saxon judicial system there is a strict separation between the jury and the judge, the judge has to apply the law and the jury appreciates the fact thus the objection permit to impeach an evidence or an answer to be taken into account for the jury in its appreciation of the fact. In France, the jury is present only in criminal proceedings and there is no such separation indeed the judge appreciates the law and the facts of the case hence there is no necessity to form an objection. Besides in France, there is a control before the trial of the admissibility of the proof, these control is not that extended in America which explains also in part the necessity of the objection.

Finally, the father loses the case because of the presumption that a mother is better suited to take care of a young child, As the father's lawyer says, "They went for motherhood right down the line." In France, now the father can have the custody of his child even if in only 30% of the case they ask for it. In fact, the judge look at what is best for the interest of the child, but event today the younger the child is the better chance he has to go with his mother. This movie highlight this “injustice”, because in the story the father really wants his son to stay with him, he does whatever he can to raise him, to take good care of him and it's not fair that it's the mother who run away from the home wins the trial. The trial was lost since the beginning.

Also in France the custody is not either for the father or the mother, it can be both, they can share equally the time with the child, in the trial here it seems not to be possible.

In conclusion, the trial process is particular as the lawyers can object in front of the judge and also the custody condition seems not be the same than in France but it may have change since the date of the movie.