I randomly found this film on the TV one day when I was a kid. I enjoyed Jessica Steen's acting greatly as she fought for her child to live a "normal" life. I also enjoyed the story of the movie. I wouldn't recommend this movie to just anyone, you have to be prepared for low expectations of the film. It is a lower budget movie. But if your seeking a film about a mother and her love for her children I would watch it. Unfortunately I can't seem to find this movie anywhere.
7 Reviews
True Story Of The Murder Of A Child - By Dick Sobsey
JBT-DMC14 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Last night Canada's CBC television network aired Society's Child. Although names were changed, the film, originally released in 2002, takes pains to let the audience know that it is based on a true story of Katie Lynn Baker who had Rett syndrome and was starved to death by her mother in 1996.
It's difficult to know why the CBC chose to re-air the film now. Perhaps during the tense weeks of Terry Schiavo's starvation, CBC execs got the idea to insert Canada's very on "feeding-tube-and-starvation" melodrama into the line-up.
This film provides the most biased and unapologetic endorsement for killing children with disabilities of any ever produced.It should not and cannot be appropriately be compared with the so-called Nazi euthanasia films of the 1930s, such as Wolfgang Liebeneiner's Ich klage an (I accuse) (1941), which was shown at the War Crimes Trials after World War II. As Liebeniner points out, his film was "rejected as evidence because it had 'nothing to do with the crimes (euthanasia program) on the indictment... The film's purpose was to test whether public opinion would approve of a law sanctioning death on demand with certain medical and legal safeguards." (quote from Liebeniner letter, 1965). This film cannot be compared with Liebeneiner's work because it goes much further openly endorsing the actions of the mother who killed her child, and suggesting that she was merely carrying out the clearly communicated wishes of her daughter, while condemning all those who questioned the right of a mother to kill her child.
Make no mistake, the killing of Katie Lynn Baker was an important episode in Canadian History. If Canada goes down the road to euthanasia, the Katie Lynn Baker case may rightly been considered as an important step in decriminalizing homicide of children with disabilities. It is important to remember that the inquest after Katie Lynn Baker's death ruled that she died as a result of homicide but that the BC crown simply decided not to prosecute because "there is no likelihood of conviction" (BC Ministry of the Attorney General, 2 December 1999). This was not based on a lack of evidence of the cause of death or who was responsible, but rather the notion that Canada as a society felt okay about mothers killing their 10-year-old daughters, under the right circumstances. In this case the right circumstances mean "when the child has a severe disability." Of course the made-for-TV drama conveniently leaves out that the death was ruled a homicide. Not surprisingly, they leave out most of the facts that did not fit with their unabashed celebration of the killing of a ten- year-old child. In general, this movie is based on the real case in the same way that a film about America's victory in Viet Nam is based in reality.
However, if they have left out the facts they have added lots of delusions to take their place. They take pains to make it clear that this child had a severe physical disability but no cognitive disability and to show her clearly and independently communicating her choice to be starved to death. In fact, no one but her mother claimed that Katie made such a communication. Most experts claimed she was physically and probably mentally unable to make such an independent communication and her primary caregiver claimed that that Katie was communicating and pleading to live, not be killed. Most disturbingly, the film uses a cheap voice over narration device to tell the story from the perspective of the child who is killed. This allows the story to be told celebrating killing as the right thing to do.
This device of putting words in the mouth of the victim to celebrate the perpetrator is pretty cheap and might be applied to any homicide victim to provide ringing endorsements of their killers. Perhaps sometime in the future, the CBC will bring us stories narrated by Andera Yates', Clfford Olson's or Paul Bernardo's victims celebrating the people who killed them and revealing that these child killers were really determined and altruistic advocates for children. I hope not. Of course, the CBC could say they are not really endorsing this or they could say that the opinions of Dennis Foon, who wrote this, Buffalo Gal Productions, and Sienna Pictures are not necessarily their opinions just because they ran the film, but that would not be consistent with their program description on their website. They characterize the film as "a story of unconditional love."
It's difficult to know why the CBC chose to re-air the film now. Perhaps during the tense weeks of Terry Schiavo's starvation, CBC execs got the idea to insert Canada's very on "feeding-tube-and-starvation" melodrama into the line-up.
This film provides the most biased and unapologetic endorsement for killing children with disabilities of any ever produced.It should not and cannot be appropriately be compared with the so-called Nazi euthanasia films of the 1930s, such as Wolfgang Liebeneiner's Ich klage an (I accuse) (1941), which was shown at the War Crimes Trials after World War II. As Liebeniner points out, his film was "rejected as evidence because it had 'nothing to do with the crimes (euthanasia program) on the indictment... The film's purpose was to test whether public opinion would approve of a law sanctioning death on demand with certain medical and legal safeguards." (quote from Liebeniner letter, 1965). This film cannot be compared with Liebeneiner's work because it goes much further openly endorsing the actions of the mother who killed her child, and suggesting that she was merely carrying out the clearly communicated wishes of her daughter, while condemning all those who questioned the right of a mother to kill her child.
Make no mistake, the killing of Katie Lynn Baker was an important episode in Canadian History. If Canada goes down the road to euthanasia, the Katie Lynn Baker case may rightly been considered as an important step in decriminalizing homicide of children with disabilities. It is important to remember that the inquest after Katie Lynn Baker's death ruled that she died as a result of homicide but that the BC crown simply decided not to prosecute because "there is no likelihood of conviction" (BC Ministry of the Attorney General, 2 December 1999). This was not based on a lack of evidence of the cause of death or who was responsible, but rather the notion that Canada as a society felt okay about mothers killing their 10-year-old daughters, under the right circumstances. In this case the right circumstances mean "when the child has a severe disability." Of course the made-for-TV drama conveniently leaves out that the death was ruled a homicide. Not surprisingly, they leave out most of the facts that did not fit with their unabashed celebration of the killing of a ten- year-old child. In general, this movie is based on the real case in the same way that a film about America's victory in Viet Nam is based in reality.
However, if they have left out the facts they have added lots of delusions to take their place. They take pains to make it clear that this child had a severe physical disability but no cognitive disability and to show her clearly and independently communicating her choice to be starved to death. In fact, no one but her mother claimed that Katie made such a communication. Most experts claimed she was physically and probably mentally unable to make such an independent communication and her primary caregiver claimed that that Katie was communicating and pleading to live, not be killed. Most disturbingly, the film uses a cheap voice over narration device to tell the story from the perspective of the child who is killed. This allows the story to be told celebrating killing as the right thing to do.
This device of putting words in the mouth of the victim to celebrate the perpetrator is pretty cheap and might be applied to any homicide victim to provide ringing endorsements of their killers. Perhaps sometime in the future, the CBC will bring us stories narrated by Andera Yates', Clfford Olson's or Paul Bernardo's victims celebrating the people who killed them and revealing that these child killers were really determined and altruistic advocates for children. I hope not. Of course, the CBC could say they are not really endorsing this or they could say that the opinions of Dennis Foon, who wrote this, Buffalo Gal Productions, and Sienna Pictures are not necessarily their opinions just because they ran the film, but that would not be consistent with their program description on their website. They characterize the film as "a story of unconditional love."
Insufferably sentimental drama, avoid like the plague.
wrghtrwright11 May 2002
Like most made for tv movies, this potentially moving film about the plight of a very brave disabled little girl is hi-jacked by a script that always sticks to the obvious, dialogue which is painful in its banality and a patronising, simplistic attitude to the issues that it raises. If this film got advice from doctors specialising in this condition behind the scenes it certainly doesn't show, she might as well be Dustin Hoffman from Rain Man for all the film tells us about her. Also for my money the narrator who is assigned in the film to "voice" her thoughts is an extremely insulting touch, how on earth can she think up more wisecracks than Mikey from "Look Who's Talking" when we already know she has the maturity of a 2 year old?! I could go on about the sexist undercurrent running through the film which paints every man as a child-beating loser or an uneducated dope, not to mention the pathetic ending which cheats by giving us hope only to throw it back in our faces, but I think I've made my point. Fact is, TV movies aren't exactly an art form and if you're looking for authenticity and the truth about sufferers of this terrible genetic disease and the effect that it has on the people around them, you'd be much better off down the library doing research then subjecting yourself to the tabloid treatment that this film reduces it to.
A Wonderful Movie About Life
Taylor0722 April 2003
I thought that this was a very well written movie about real life, not life as we would like it. The mother may have been a welfare mother with 6 children, but she did the best that she could. She gave her daughter more love than anyone else could have done under the circumstances. She did try to bring the child's father back into her life, but that didn't work out and she dealt with it. In my opinion, she was a very brave strong woman who was given more than she could bear, but never gave up, because that wasn't an option. If you have a child with a disability, giving up is not your choice. Nikki was blessed to be raised with love.
RATHER INTERESTING!!
lswanson30 November 2002
This was a very interesting movie..As a great grand mother of a 30 month Rhett Snydrome child..it was very interesting. And a very caring person who portrayed the mother..No one knows how this will affect you until you have been there. There was so much truth in this,, except for the times where it "would be her speaking". As we all know, in these situations,, there is very few words that are actually spoken..
The next thing I would love to comment on,, IS WHERE CAN I BUY THIS MOVIE..?? Would love for some others to see it..
The next thing I would love to comment on,, IS WHERE CAN I BUY THIS MOVIE..?? Would love for some others to see it..
worth seeing, first rate canadian movie,,2 thumbs up!!!
aussiemom732 July 2002
This movie touched my heart and soul. It covered a very difficult and touching issue based on a true story. It was directed and shown with the love and dignity that the Mother wanted to portray of the life and death of a child and to make people more aware of Rett Syndrome, something that most libraries and people have very little knowledge of.
Avoid
turtlewax18211 January 2003
I didn't enjoy this movie AT ALL. It's mostly the approach to the story. I would have preferred seeing a realistic look at this disease, but instead we get tossed into this girl's mind so to speak, and are unfortunately forced to listen to an unnecessary and irritating narration throughout the whole film. And above all, like we're supposed to feel sorry, or some hint of emotion, for this woman who is unwed and has six children and living on welfare?! I don't think so! She put herself in that position by having kids when she was 14!! Just really cliched in certain situations which we expected: like mom having an unreliable on again-off again and somewhat abusive boyfriend, rebellious older children, scrapping for food and money, and Nikki just adapting to everyday functions. I realize the girl had the mind capacity of a two-year old, but that whining every time her mom would fight or get hurt, was SO annoying. I just became more and more annoyed as I watched this, so I turned it off after an hour. Very few made for tv movies are remarkably good, but this one is remarkably bad. Don't waste your time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
