A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries

Let the cyber reader beware! Reading the summary as well as the first User Comment about this movie, "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries, which I viewed recently [2004], stunned a 4-letter word out of my mouth. These two viewers seem blissfully unaware of any knowledge of James Jones or his times. Nor do they show even a basic appreciation for film or narrative methods. If they cannot support their assertions about the film--that it is "emotionless" for instance--with some reference to accepted standards of drama or acting, we must assume that they know no better. My question is this: why does such an important site for movie-lovers accept such limited summations of films to remain on the site?

Kris Kristofferson is really good as the father, the military man, and eventually the author. The title comes from his habit of telling his daughter, Channe (Leelee Sobieski) that "a soldier's daughter never cries." The last time he says that, as she is typing at his hospital bedside, she says, "You're not a soldier anymore, you're an author."

He and family had been stationed in France for a long while, and the children grew up there. He moved to the USA when they were teenagers, they had difficulty adjusting to the American school and way of life. The family handled the issue of sex in an unconventional manner. Dad figured "they're going to do it anyway, so I'd rather have them in my house, in the bedroom, instead of the back seat of a car somewhere." The boyfriend was quite surprised, to say the least.

Dad died, brother came to accept the fact that his real mother did not really abandon him when she was only 15, the whole family united an memory of dad.

This is one of those plotless films that is more portraiture than story - which is to say it's like many French films. And in fact the film starts in French. Yes, things do happen, but episodically, by way of illustration , not in relation to any central, continual story.

What interested me in retrospect was WHY it's plotless, and what that says about the kind of portrait being drawn here.

The film is putatively about the protagonist, whom we see from childhood through adolescence. But in fact it is a carefully drawn study of that classic ideal, the Honest and Just Man. In this case, her father, based on the novelist James Jones (played by Kris Kristofferson, whose craggy face so suits the ideal in question that he hardly has to speak.)

Most of the incidents serve to demonstrate one of two points: that her father is deeply loving and understanding, and a bit unconventional (as is her mother), and that the family - which includes her adopted French brother - is close and loving despite being outsiders both in France and the US. We also see scattered images of her sexual awakening (which includes some early promiscuity), but even these in the end say more about her father than her.

The film's greatest strength is, in fact, this portrait of a family united in unconditional love, which endures even after the father's death. This image - certainly a profoundly tempting ideal to many of us - lingers after the film is over and is its most satisfying element. And in fact the film stayed with me well after I'd seen it, and I could recommend it to many viewers on that basis.

But… why is a film with four characters, rich in emotion, devoid of a central plot?

Because it's devoid of a central conflict. The father is relentlessly understanding and loving; the daughter is relentlessly grateful. Meanwhile , it's clear, even in this idealized portrait, that both parents drink (a lot). The daughter's attachment to another outsider at one school and her sexual acting out at another are never really examined. Yet they suggest something far more difficult and conflicted than a happy childhood. Certainly, the known effects of growing up with alcoholic are barely acknowledged, much less highlighted.

Perhaps this was a conscious decision, an attempt to avoid an aspect that of course is overdone in much contemporary drama. But certainly it points to SOME drama at the heart of this family, some conflict that might have more productively been examined and used as a guiding thread. (Even the simple fact of adoring a 'perfect' father has its own inherent conflicts, as was beautifully shown in "Eve's Bayou.")

So what we end up with is an ideal, and certainly the hunger for ideals is real enough. But here I felt too that it was a missed opportunity, an attempt to portray perfection at the expense of achieving resolution.

I read the reviews that people gave of this movie and I don't understand why they wanted so much character development and resolution. I thought that the characters were fine. They were a little underdeveloped but they seemed alright. I think that people didn't like the slowness of the movie perhaps. I thought that the slowness of the movie was its strength. I didn't mind that things were left unresolved. I would rather have a movie that leaves some things unanswered than answers all the questions. I thought it was a great movie. It wasn't too flashy or anything, quite simple, well edited, and it allowed the characters to breathe and be themselves. I thought it was wonderful for that. The characters were very natural and just were themselves which I enjoyed. I'd recommend this to anyone who wants a movie which might provoke a little discussion about parents and the relationships within a family. I thought the relationships within the family were nice and appropriately complex while at the same time sometimes unexamined, which is a lot like life I think. Well, I would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone. It is a sedate and quiet and really feels like a French movie.

The movie was well put together in a sense that it flowed nicely. The movie was filmed really well and the cast was absolutely amazing. Where is got confusing is that the movie has no plot. It's not really directing you towards something. And it doesn't add up to anything. The movie is essentially about a family. Two children, their childhood and growing into adults. It could be classified as a coming of age movie. The movie seems to center itself on Channe. We watch as she is a selfish, wild spoiled brat who slowly comes into a women.

There is no massive drama or story. Mostly friendships that come and go. There's nothing really in the plot to sink your teeth into. Nothing to discover or no real drama. I kept waiting for something to happen, but nothing really happened. I did really enjoy the cast. Leelee Sobieski was great as always, never missing a beat. You do fall slightly in love with the characters and want to see the best for them. You see clearly where things lacked in the home and how it all comes together in the end.

I wasn't really impressed with the ending. The last quote made it seem like the entire movie was about Billy when in fact the film seems to center on Channe with Billy as a side fact. And it was hard to watch the selfishness of the characters and how people really didn't mean much to them. But family means everything. It would have been nice to see more of a final ending of where the characters ended up. Instead we are left with the countless possibilities of what could have happened to them.

"I pray all the time, I pray he will be loved, as is his right.