A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries

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.

"A Soldier´s Daughter Never Cries" is the kind of movie that, in spite of American production, feels very European. American movies tend to be sentimental with plenty of scenes specifically calculated to make viewers get teary eyed. European movies, though, usually opt for a more naturalistic approach that refuses to wallow in emotions. In the case of "Soldier´s Daughter", this characteristic can be both good and bad. It is good in the sense that the movie seems more realistic because one must admit that in real life, melodramatic conduct is not too common. Emotions seem to be hidden rather than absent and they actually do appear in small explosions like in the somewhat odd outbursts of the mother towards the end. Emotions also seem to be behind the strange behavior of the characters (e.g. the maid scrubbing the floor at midnight after breaking up with her lover or Billy acting antisocial to make up for his feelings of resentment). Howwever, there are quite a few scenes which should have been emotionally powerful but aren´t. A good dose of American sentiment could have made a difference. For example, in the one scene where Channe finally starts crying (the title of the movie is a saying her father keeps quoting at her), I understood the place of it in the plot but was not touched by it. When Francis, heartbroken, says goodbye to Channe after telling her his secret, the situation should have been heartrending but it also left me feeling hollow - and this in spite of the fact that Francis, an effeminate heterosexual, was probably the film´s most fascinating character. Furthermore, the parents´ understated reactions often make it seem that they do not really love or care about their children the way everyone keeps insisting they do (is that a possible hidden meaning ?).

Otherwise, the movie is fine in the sense that it is intelligently written. Not only is it based on a novel but it feels as if it WAS a novel rather than a movie. The family is portrayed quite realistically. Even though the film does not seem to try to be artistic, it is lyrical enough to be seen as art.

We got this video from library without knowing anything about it, except for the good reputations of the actors & director. The story rambles along following the lives of a young American girl & family living in Paris -- their adoption of a French boy, and how their lives change as the two grow up, eventually moving to North Carolina. The acting is good, and the story details are fascinating and off-beat (her teenage boy friend who sings great soprano opera, for example). Perhaps the father is too good to believe (from a kid's point of view) but it's a warm story that just kind of ends after the father dies. I can see why it might not be hugely popular, but it provides much food for thought and discussion within families as to choices, values, etc. Another plus - great location photography.

This is an sensitive exploration of the family and place. I noticed that Bill Willis was the only father in the picture, Billy and Francis did not have fathers. As a coming of age movie it really worked- for not only does Channe lose some of her innocence- it starts in the tree house- she also is able to accept her coming into adult status- as is evidenced by dumping the jock and losing some of her self-centeredness. I loved the character of Francis- boy/not sexually threatening- yet freeing for Channe by the fact of his flamboyance. Most of the parts of this movie fit together well- there is enough dichotomy- the mother can throw sand in the sadistic teacher's face, but she also crumbles at the death of an unborn child. Like us the characters are both strong and weak. At first I was bothered by the lack of reference to Vietnam- then I realized neither Billy nor Channe would be that affected like those of us who lived through that period. Most of all, Soldier's Daughter moved me to thinking how parents really influence their children. Any movie that foregoes bombs for thought is tops in my book.

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?