Philomena,
the movie, is not that unusual for being loosely based on the book, The Lost Child of Philomena Lee, but the
difference between the two highlights how a shift of focus obscured an
unusually clear insight into recent American politics. Rarely since the fate of
nations ceased being subject to the whims of princes has one life shown so
directly the lines of causality linking an individual tragedy and social
calamity.
Philomena
the movie tells the story of an unwed Irish mother whose son was born at a time
when Catholic American families, who paid significant sums for the privilege,
adopted children from Irish religious institutions that sheltered young women
during their pregnancies. The mothers, pressured by shame and isolation, were
more or less forced to sign papers allowing their children to be adopted and
taken out of Ireland. From her boy’s birth until the age of three, Philomena
worked in the convent and was allowed to spend limited time with her son. Then
he was abruptly taken away. After decades during which she never forgot the
child, Philomena began a search that took her to America. Dame Judy Dench plays
Philomena as a woman whose heart and dignity weigh more than her lack of
familiarity with the ways of the world.
The
Lost Child of Philomena Lee, on the other hand, tells the story
of her son, Anthony, given the name Michael by his American family. While
Philomena’s story is a tale of heartbreak and injustice, Michael’s is a tragedy
rooted in the original Irish injustice that branched out into immeasurable
consequence for America. Michael was a bright child troubled throughout his
life by his orphan’s belief that he must be something horrible if his mother had abandoned him. His wordless feelings of loss and insecurity were exacerbated by
his adoptive father’s chronic disapproval throughout his life.
By itself, Michael’s psychology would make an intriguing
story, particularly as he struggled with his growing awareness of being gay.
Both his religion and his nation practiced a particularly rabid homophobia; but
despite cultural and personal pressures, Michael still managed at least a
closeted gay life even though his relationships were often sabotaged by bouts
of self-destructive behavior. However, the story of Michael the complicated
individual began to assume larger dimensions after he graduated from George
Washington Law School and began working in Washington DC.
Michael’s legal interest focused on congressional
redistricting and got him a job first with a group that claimed to be
nonpartisan but which actually leaned toward Republicans. His personal liberal
beliefs were buried deep when he was offered work with the Republican National
Committee in the Reagan Administration. I believe it is largely forgotten how solidly
the plank of gay-bashing was nailed into the Republican platform by the GOP’s
alliance with the Christian Right, and how open homophobia was part of Reagan’s
successful campaign strategy.
Like many gay Americans of the time, Michael’s double life
permitted him to ignore the nation’s prejudice and accept the privileges that
came with success. He had made himself a legal expert in the arcane area of
redistricting. Initially, he had been attracted to how current law could
curtail the practice of gerrymandering which set up voting districts so that
one party was favored over another, but as a lawyer for the Republican National
Committee, Michael’s work focused on strategies to bring Republicans to power
and solidify their hold on Congress. Arguably, the fear of being outed probably
made Michael even keener to serve well his masters who were versions of the
affable, smiling, new cowboy President. Michael rose in the ranks until, at 32,
he became deputy chief legal counsel to the RNC; and he and his partner could
afford a weekend home in the country near Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia, where
they entertained friends who were also young, handsome, and successful.
AIDS brought American homophobic demagogues a powerful
weapon. People who had already accepted the demonizing of homosexuals were now
horrified to learn that this nest of vipers was sowing a killer plague
throughout the country. Ronald Reagan maintained his personal hypocrisy of
allowing gay friends from Hollywood to stay in the White House while ignoring
the health crisis raging in the nation. At the center of power in the GOP, it
was understood that campaigns against abortion and homosexuals were not beliefs
just useful strategies, but Reagan’s silence gave the homophobes permission to
preach hate. Jerry Falwell of the Christian Right, Gerry Hauer, Pat Buchanan
and the Moral Majority, William Bennett, William F. Buckley – these were all
Republican luminaries who supported talk of mandatory testing of homosexuals
and possible quarantine camps.
I personally believe that what stopped this slide toward
fascism was the courage of the men and women who became active for their own
survival in groups like ACT UP. All too heartbreakingly slowly, people in
America became aware that it wasn’t demons who were dying of AIDS, it was their
brothers, sons, friends, fathers and neighbors. People they knew and loved. People
who came out to support each other with their expertise and experience. Unfortunately,
Michael was not one of those who participated in demands that changed national
policy. He became even further embedded in the GOP as he became Chief Legal
Counsel to George H.W. Bush. Yet the sense of being a fake, the imposter who
was the cast-off illegitimate Irish orphan, once again sabotaged him. Initially
he had tested negative with the HIV virus, but a spate of risky,
self-destructive sexual behavior left him positive. Michael died of AIDS.
This is the story that Philomena
the movie obscures and distorts. Serious questions, about political hypocrisy,
the justification for outing, or the influence of religion in the affairs of
nations like Ireland and the US, are never asked. The repercussions of
redistricting that Michael’s work had on the current Congress are not discussed.
Instead we are treated to the sentimental story of one woman’s suffering
and, with maddening but cliché sexism, the evil in the film is personalized
in an elderly nun, the least powerful figure in the institutional hierarchies.
Michael’s fate and that of hundreds of Irish children sold to Catholic families
in America could not have occurred without the connivance and collaboration of a
male priesthood and the state policies of two countries.
Of late, I see that Philomena Lee has visited Pope
Francis and reportedly forgiven him. Something like that. The journalist in the
movie claims not to do “personal interest” stories. It’s a shame and a loss that this rule
was not followed by the moviemakers.
