Wednesday, June 23, 2010

C+ for Google Baby

 We watched Google Baby last week and my husband Colin said he was bored.  It dragged on in some spots a little too long.  Even though we knew almost all of the people in the film and were happy to see them on TV. One cannot film a document in India with the "Mother" of surrogacy, Dr. Patel and she had a leading role.  I felt like a lot was missing from the film.  Doron, who is the main character of the film,  did not connect with Dr. Patel because I could see that in her facial movements, and then she quickly dismissed him.   It was interesting how Doron, helps people with donor eggs as well as donor sperm and then ships frozen embryos.  It was clear that some people were using both, and I don't understand how those babies get out of India.   Also the characters really were not developed at all, with the exception of Diska to a point.  It seems as if all of the media gravitates to Diska because she speaks the most English.  I'm not sure why they did not get an interrupter and interview other surrogates and really tell their story of how they chose surrogacy.  Also the majority of people going to India have amazing stories to tell about their own life.  Who would have thought that me, left alone in apartment to die as a baby who was not shown love, would be capable of growing up and wanting a baby would go around the world to get one.  A Black women from New York, marries a White man from Austrilia and in mid-life have one son and are expecting twins.  We are an anomaly itself, as are so many who are on the same path.

Personally, I think I could have done a much better job as well as a few other's who are in that inner circle of surrogacy.  I'm not sure how much of an audience a documentary can get, if you cannot draw people into the story.  The story is not necessarily for those who have been, it's for those who have not.

1 comment:

.jon said...


You hit the nail on the head with your last sentence.

Too often the media insists on focusing on the sensationlized aspect of the story - the (false) belief that the surrogates are being exploited and abused by money-wielding Westerners and how baby-making is being commoditized (what Ms Frank said in the WSJ interview). This is what gets ratings and adclicks for all the media outlets and producers because it strikes at one of the biggest primal fears that humans have: the permanent separation of a baby from its "birth mother". You and I and everyone else who has gone this path knows that's not the case actually but this is how it's spun subliminally to the unknowing public for ratings and viewers. And it works! It's too bad that they can't instead focus on the surrogates a year after their delivery and the positive impact all this money has on their lives and their families and also the miracle that this process delivers to infertile couples and others who otherwise can't procreate. One rarely sees that.

The media knows that the public, both here and in the rest of the world, does not want to hear about how a middle-aged interracial couple or a middle-aged gay couple leveraged technology and globalization to achieve their dreams of parenthood against all odds. Too often they prefer to recast the story with a focus on how these "desperate" couples are exploiting indigent women in Third World countries to satisfy their selfish need to become parents.

I've found reading various reviews and comments that Zippi is very judgemental about this entire process. I bet Dr Patel wasn't prepared for the negativity when she decided to be interviewed by her. It sucks when these "journalists" have hidden agendas.