St. louis international film festival 2010 critical viewing- made in indiaPresentation Transcript
St. Louis International film festival- 2010 Critical Viewing- Made In India By: Rachel Kent
Made In India
Co-Directors/ Producers: Rebecca Haimowitz and Vaishali Sinh.
Year Produced: 2010
Made in India follows a infertile family and their efforts to have a child. They first wanted to try surrogacy in the Untied States, but when they researched surrogacy in the United states it was too costly. They then decide to try surrogacy in India. The directors then follow the crisis of the infertile American Family, the Surrogate family, international position, and reproductive technology.
The Central message is Human International rights.
The right of the parents to have a surrogate in India, and to take their children home as American citizens.
The right of the surrogate to receive the contracted amount of money.
The recent increase in “outsourcing” surrogacy, and the global perspective.
The Surrogate Mother
The Film Maker’s Effectiveness
+ They used good sources to prove the theme of the film, and to give the proper information.
+ Showing the everyday life of the surrogate in India, and seeing the poverty was a very effective way of showing how great of an opportunity it was for the surrogate to get money.
+ The directors were able to reach powerful emotions when they showed the parents excitement as they bought clothes and took pictures of their children to show off their little joys. That effect was needed to make the audience care about the family for when the parents had issues getting their kids under their own possession.
It was ineffective when they used a screen to relay information rather than showing an interview or having a voice over. It is understandable that their were places in India that did not allow filming, but they could have been more creative.
Living Conditions in India
Emotional Sources That the Film Makers Used
The mother: They interviewed the mother and showed her desperation to have a child. I found this the most emotionally effective source.
The father: They did not interview the father as much as the mother, but when he spoke it was also very emotionally effective. It was easy to tell how much they wanted a family.
The surrogate: They interviewed the surrogate mother for several reasons. First they established to the audience what her living conditions where like, then they interviewed her to ask her how she felt about being pregnant for someone else, and they also interviewed her about her rights to get the money from her contract. That was all she was in it for; she wanted to get out of her living condition and she was desperate for a way. I found this very effective source because she was the person carrying the child, and a look into how beneficial this was to the women in India.
Factual Sources that The Film Makers Used
The doctor in India in charge of “outsourcing” surrogacy: He was an effective source because he had the most knowledge about the procedure, and the recent obsession with outsourcing.
Employees of this doctor: They interviewed employees of the office. They talked about how the surrogates react to the procedure and the general outcomes. They where effective sources because they deal with surrogate mothers everyday, and they know the business well.
The U.S. department of State in India employee: She talked about the trouble with convincing the hospital that the children belonged the the American family rather than the surrogate. She had to convince the Government of India that those babies where American citizens. She was an effective source because she was directly involved in making sure the babies were able to be brought back to the United States.
How have human choices had a local and global impact?
Many humans have recently “chosen” to go to India and other countries to find a less expensive surrogate.
India and other countries are now forming rights to ensure that the surrogate gets paid all the money she was promised.
The U.S. is now creating rights so that when people use a surrogate in other countries, they are able to bring back their child as an American citizen.
It also is a good economical impact for the poor areas in India. It is a good source of money for those who do not have much.
Is truth dependent upon place, culture, and time?
In this documentary the surrogate mother lied to her husband to get him to sign off saying that she could be a surrogate and she tried to hide the fact that she was pregnant from her neighbors in fear that she was being judged. Obviously, she had to fess up eventually and say that she was pregnant. She told her husband the truth. She told the neighbors that she was pregnant, but that she was going to be giving the child to her sister. (She does not have a sister. She only has a step sister). She did not want them to know that it was not her own baby. Her step sister is the one who told her about surrogacy. The step sister wanted to try this procedure herself to get money, but it would ruin her because she had not been married.
Truth is different depending on the culture because in the United States being an unmarried surrogate mother is the ideal, but in India it would be a disgrace.
In the United States having a surrogate mother can cost anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000. The Surrogate Mother gets paid anywhere between $13,000 and $25,000.
In India having a surrogate mother costs around $12,000 total. The Surrogate Mother gets paid anywhere from $5,000 to $7,000.
Comparing the Culture of India to the U.S.
A contract is not always as solid as it is the U.S. The surrogate mother had problems retrieving her money, and their was no one forcing the agency to pay her. The Surrogate mother had to contact the family and ask them to help her get the money she was promised.
Laws are also not as forceful in other Countries than the Untied States. India does have a set of laws for Surrogate mothers, but they are not required. They are meant to be read as guide lines for the process. Currently, in India, they are working to create rights for surrogate mothers since surrogacy, in India, has become so popular.
Most parts of India are not as privileged as the United States, and this helped the women's family tremendously. This helped her family, and many others, create financial stability.
Is the Government putting this at the top of their priority list? Why?
Is this going to have effects on the U.S. surrogacy? Will they begin to lower prices?
Is it common for the surrogate mother to want to keep the baby? What rights would the genetic family have to keep their child?
If the surrogate was not getting paid the money she was promised, how could the parents tell if she was getting the proper health care that they paid for?