Michelle Monaghan is one of those actresses who gets a lot of work but isn’t quite a household name. Maybe soon. She played Woody Harrelson’s wife in True Detective. Michelle also stars in a new indie flick, Fort Bliss (you can see the trailer here), where she plays a soldier returning from deployment. The film’s promotional material presents Michelle’s soldier character, Maggie, as the “ultimate working mother.” Maggie returns from a 15-month deployment and struggles to reconnect with a 5-year-old son who barely recognizes her. Her ex-husband complicates matters by trying to gain full custody. The film sounds like a heartbreaker.
I think most working or non-working mothers are the “ultimate” at what they do. But I understand this movie’s message. Not all mothers have to leave their children for a year (or more) to deploy or mobilize. Female soldiers do so on a regular basis. Reacclimation to society is difficult for male and female soldiers. I’ve known several military families. People think the hardest part of deployment is when the soldier is away. Not so. After the initial happy reunion, learning how to live with a virtual stranger is hard for everyone. There’s a new person in the house with weird new habits. It’s rough. Michelle talks about her character’s struggle in relation to all working parents:
The “right” answer to the work vs. staying home dilemma: “I think the right answer to that dilemma is whatever the mother or the career woman wants to do. I think this movie poses a much broader question, as you were talking about, about the mother leaves her family to go to work — she’s a bad mother. The fact that we judge a mom’s parental choice as opposed to not judging a father’s parental choices at all when they have to leave for work — it’s just so archaic, really. It doesn’t seem fair to me. I do love that this film tackles that question.”
On playing such a layered character: “I really appreciated how torn she was, really conflicted between two worlds. You can imagine the confusion, and the strength, and the vulnerability, and the tension that all that can become. [I spoke] with a lot of female vets, soldiers who were also moms, talking to them about their experiences. They spoke to me with great candor about their struggles, their challenges and that really informed the emotional journey of this character.”
On soldiers returning home: “A lot of soldiers who return home, they are very emotionally depressed for good reason. It’s not just easy for them to flip the switch. I really just connected to their story and my passion to tell their story with as much emotional truth as I possibly could. From a personal standpoint, I, too, am a working mom, and I do things sometimes here and there away from my kids, and certainly not to the extent as soldiers do — that’s an extreme case.”
On reconnecting: “I don’t leave for fifteen months at a time. I’ve left my daughter up to a month without seeing her, and it is hard when you come back. I don’t cut the bread the way she wants. [laughs] You know. Or she no longer likes scrambled eggs. She likes maple syrup with her oatmeal and not honey anymore. Those are little things. It takes time to reconnect, but I think there’s something that’s even more important beyond that — it’s that while it may be hard to reconnect on some small level here and there, on a greater level I think it’s also very honorable and an important thing to be a good example to your child. If you love your job and you’re proud of what you do, then to be able to express that and for your child to be able to witness that is just important. Just because you can’t be there a hundred percent of the time doesn’t, of course, make you a bad mother.”
On humanizing soldiers: “Whether you’re male or female, it’s a constant struggle to balance your career and parenthood. People will relate to it on that level. They’ll also be enlightened about an aspect of the war that very few people consider. I think there’s a real disconnect between civilians and people in uniform, and I think that the story helps humanize the soldiers’ experience. Not just the soldier themselves, but, really, the sacrifices the entire family makes when one gets deployed for any number of months.”
[From Screen Invasion]
Michelle says a lot of smart things here. Her words seem like common sense, right? Yet we’re still dealing with a huge void in 2014 on how working mothers are treated as opposed to fathers who work outside the home. Journos still ask these questions to actresses. Dudes don’t have to deal with same stuff (although they’re usually asked how they beef up for a role) in interviews.
Oh … Michelle also has an upcoming movie, Playing It Cool, with Chris Evans (and Anthony Mackie) on the horizon. I didn’t have the heart to mention it in a separate post. It looks laughably bad. This is the movie where Chris dresses up as a snow-wizard astronaut for some unknown reason. Here’s the trailer. I’m sorry.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & WENN
This!!!!!!! Finally someone realized it’s 2014.
I love love love this woman…
She’s vastly under-rated in H-wood and I hope people start to see how great she is
#girlcrush
I’ve always thought at least one parent regardless of the gender should be around for the kids. I’ve issues with couples who have a kid and then leave them in childcare all week so they can both work.
Uh…having a parent at home isn’t economically feasible for every family. I think it’s always better for kids to have food to eat than a parent at home, if you have to choose one or the other. :-/
Then don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.
THIS!
Every family has its own reality, don’t judge.
@Chris. Right. Because there’s only right way to make a family. I’m rolling my eyes super hard to the left.
@Chris – If we’re going to judge people on their ability to afford children using a one-income model, we’re talking about a higher percentage of the population than people think. The increase in wages has not kept up with the cost of living and inflation. In fact, while employers are making more money, when we adjust for cost of living and inflation, wages have essentially remained stagnant.
Also, when people talk about the one-income model, I think they are not viewing the big picture. We’re not just talking about food and shelter, but healthcare, emergency savings, retirement savings, college savings, transportation costs, etc. All of that on one income?! Is it feasible, yes. For how many? Not a lot. Income is not just about surviving day-to-day life, but being prepared for the future whether it’s retirement or college education, or any unwelcome surprises.
From what I hear from my married friends with kids, having one parent stay at home is actually more doable financially than putting a kid in childcare, which is incredibly costly, at least in Massachusetts. A lot of kids do end up being raised by a grandmother though, if both parents have to work. I’m not sure I see anything innately wrong with that either. In tribal societies, kids were often raised by many family members. You know that saying “It takes a village…”
Original Kitten, I think the cost of childcare depends a lot on where you live. In the places I’ve lived it’s under $150 per week at a reputable childcare facility. I have friends that live in places where it’s easily $500 or more a week, and there are endless waiting lists.
@Kitten, I am a perfect example of what you mention. I had just graduated college when I got pregnant. I was 30, so we felt it was a good time to have our first baby. I stay home because at the level my post college career is at, it is cheaper for me to. I also work in the arts so any job I get isn’t going to have the income I need to do anything aside from pay for daycare. It’s not an ideal situation but we make it work, we do without a lot of luxury things but our kids are provided for. Who are these mythical parents working to buy luxury goods? Are we talking 1% or what Chris?
@TheOriginalKitten, keep in mind that child care costs often vary by age. If you quit your job because of short-term costs, you may well be losing more income in the long term than you spend on child care in the short term.
This is not an easy decision for any family, and each parent makes the best choices he or she can. If you’d make different choices, you’re probably in a different situation.
A friend of mine said if you wait until you feel you’re financially ready to have kids we would cease to exist. There’s always a new expense. Always something sucking your money away. Unless you are the 1% or hae a money crystal ball like Warren Buffet. Kids just happen sometimes and families make the best of it.
Now if you’re talking about welfare leeches that reproduce hoping for a state payout then yea. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them.
Outside of that your comment displays a lack of awareness to the common family’s struggles. All our parents likely had to balance the addition of kids and finacial struggles. As kitten said. It takes a village. To do it on your own is a dream.
Fan. Tastic. It’s time for mommyshaming!
I’m 35. I’m happily married to a wonderful husband and partner. We have two kids, and a third on the way. My husband and I both have busy and fulfilling careers, and our kids are in a preschool/daycare across the street from my office.
There’s never a good time to have a child if your brightline is a financial one. We wanted three kids, and are in our mid-thirties, so we’re making it work the best we can. Our life is chaotic and never boring, and I wouldn’t change it. I wouldn’t change being a working mom – full stop. Why? Because independent of my role/choice as a wife and mother, I’m also a person. I’m a person with a brain and skillset, and being able to utilize both in a challenging format makes me a better parent and partner, because I’m more fulfilled by the sheer fact that I get to be all three.
It’s hard as hell. It’s also worth it. And my kids are socially developed, precocious, happy and secure. When I shut down my laptop to head out of the office at night, I know I’m going to shift my focus over to my husband, kids, dogs, dinner, bath time, etc. The multifaceted aspects of my life don’t make me a bad parent or an irresponsible person – they simply make me a busy one.
Judging me for my choice to work (which is a financial necessity) and to place my children into daycare doesn’t reflect negatively upon me, frankly. It’s a reflection of your own narrow-mindedness, Chris.
My parents had me when they were “financially stable” and guess what? They both still have to work. Did it suck sometimes to have super busy parents who weren’t around as much as I wanted? Sure. But I also like having the capital to help pay for college.
Life is about sacrifices.
Well not averyone can afford to have a stay at home parent in the family, and not all men or women are happy to stay at home.I would go nuts without working.
I think going to work 3 or 4 days a week makes me a better mom. I love my son more than anything, but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t almost a little bit of a break!
Right now I’m struggling with taking a promotion that puts me home every night, and wknd, but working 5 days a week vs. 3 or 4 days of 13 hr shifts..
Are you specifically referencing parents that “choose” to work? I ask because at first glance the statement comes off as privileged. Plenty of people require both incomes.
Mainly targeting the materialists who put making money ahead of spending time with their kids.
Both of my parents worked and it was perfect. Working hours here are 7-3 though, so it might be a bit different.
This is an extremely ignorant comment.
What is? Being opposed to people who put acquiring non essential material possessions ahead of spending time with their kids?
But how many people are really like that, Chris? Most working parents with kids are working just to save up for the kids’ college fund and put food on the table.
The parents who work simply because they want material goods are probably the exception to the rule.
TOK is making a great point Chris.
You’re saying if you can’t afford kids don’t have them.
Then you clarify you’re targeting those who have kids, but still work to buy luxury items or material possessions over time with thei families.
Now blending the 2 statements together how many families that have to work and have 2 incomes for babysitting costs, or 1 income with stay at home parent are spending money for that latest margaritaville blender?
Your point is valid, but you’re lumping in a majority of families that aren’t working to buy junk over spending time with their kids. Your statement should be rephrased.
I wound up being a stay at home mom after the birth of our second child. My mom was getting older and having health issues which prevented her from helping me the way she did with my daughter. We have no one else we could rely on either. Our son also is an ADD/Aspergers child and I needed to be around. That said, I can’t tell you how many people give me the side eye when they ask what I do and I tell them I’m a SAHM. My response is always that I work damn hard I just don’t get a paycheck for it. If I were taking care of someone else’s child, I’d be a nanny. If I were cleaning someone else’s home I’d be a maid and so on. I’m on call 24/7, vacations are working vacations for me, and if I’m sick I still have to tend to my family’s needs unless I’m completely sidelined as I was last year for a week with a bad case of bronchitis. Otherwise no days off for mom. It’s under appreciated and underrated work.
Good on you, Nicolette. Both my kids have Asperger’s too and need a lot of support.
@Chris, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. My son is very high functioning and intelligent but this brings about many issues people don’t understand unless they’re living it for themselves. Just getting out of the house is………..well I’m sure you understand.
Yeah my boys are intelligent and high functioning. But they’re really fussy with food and have trouble socially. My oldest started high school this year and has had a bit of trouble with being bullied. My boys also go through stages of having various obsessions and phobias.
@Chris
Yes, not having Children is really the right solution especially in those countries dealing with the economic and social implications of an ageing society. What could possibly go wrong?
The more you grow the population the more aged you’ll have to look after.
@Chris: you really need to take a microeconomics class somewhere.
#chris, drop the tr0ll game.
As a PhD Gerontologist AND someone whose area of expertise and publication is workforce, this statement: “The more you grow the population the more aged you’ll have to look after” is incredibly uninformed, overly simplistic and actually DEAD WRONG. It ignores not only the present day reality, but a whole host of other factors that are related to this issue.
Demographics are all about BALANCE. To quote the National Institute on Aging (part of the US federal government) and the Population Reference Bureau:
“The world’s population is growing—and aging. Very low birth rates in developed countries, coupled with birth rate declines in most developing countries, are projected to increase the population ages 65 and over to the point in 2050 when it will be 2.5 times that of the population ages 0-4. This is an exact reversal of the situation in 1950.”
So in layman’s terms, the less people being born in a developed country–e.g. the U.S., Canada–is resulting is lower numbers in those those younger and working age adult cohorts. The ramification of this? You not only don’t have enough younger ( ages 0-17) and working age adults (ages 18-64) to care for those elderly individuals (because who do you think in a society are the most well-equipped to going to provide caregiving, health care and other services to the elderly?), but you don’t have a tax base to fund any government services they are eligible or entitled to. Good example of this are the crises the U.S. is about to face with the Baby Boom population and Social Security and Medicare.
Bottom line? In an ideal world, EVERY country has the same birth rate and there are equal numbers of young and old. In reality? Ignoring the “environmental ramification” argument–which can be dealt with, we need more births in developed nations to offset the aging of their populations.
“#chris, drop the tr0ll game. ”
Devil’s advocate, resident blowhard but never a troll.
Blowhard. lol.
Situations change is life, sometimes people fall on hard times. So drop the sanctimonious crap.
+1
If only those people would get children who can now for sure that they can survive on one salary for the next 5/10/20 years humankind would have died out a long time ago.
What if the working person has an accident/get’s sick/dies? Do you really think a parent who hasn’t had a job for years will just find another position? With the high rates of unemployment in most developed countries?
Staying at home until the kids are grown can be a pretty risky move nowadays so there isn’t the one right solution on how to handle the situation after children are born.
+10000000000000
I think it’s good to have one parent at home while the children are pre-school age, but that’s only if it’s financial feasible, and for many households – especially given the amount of debt most young people take on – that’s becoming an increasingly scarce privilege. Once the kids hit grade level schooling, though, it’s really unnecessary to have a consistently stay at home parent unless there are a high number of children or other guardianship responsibilities. Most of the women I know usually wind up taking on part time work at the least once the kids hit grade school, even if it’s only to get a break from the drudgery of home labor.
@Chris-What happens if two people decide to have a child/children and one person makes a very good income, so it’s feasible for them to have this child, and a few months later, that person is laid off/injured, becomes ill… sometimes the best -laid plans get screwed up beyond anyone’s control. I am also of the mind that if you are struggling financially it is prudent to wait to have kids, but like I said, sometimes life is unpredictable. then what?
You have to do what you have to do. But keeping up with the Joneses shouldn’t trump being there for your kids.
Interesting food for thought, people, especially the stuff about your wage needing to cover expenses beyond just the day to day. E.g retirement, emergencies and college. I’m certainly guilty of just living from pay cheque to pay cheque with a she’ll be right attitude towards the long term.
Chris – CHOOSING to live paycheck to paycheck is so financially irresponsible I don’t even know where to begin. Just because a parent wants to be a little financially secure (for their children and for themselves) does NOT mean they shouldn’t have had kids in the first place. You are narrow minded and short sighted. Please stop talking.
Chris, you are in the danger zone now with this crowd. Be prepared for the backlash. lol!
I actually got a lot of useful feedback from this thread.
So only those in the higher tax brackets where only one spouse needs to work should be allowed the wonderful experience of having children and to hell with everyone else? I think as long as you’re not being completely irresponsible and having tons of kids while you’re on welfare, then you have the right to create your own family as you see fit. I was raised in a loving household with two parents who had to work because neither made that much money . My brother is now an aeronautical engineer and I’m an attorney and we each had a great childhood, filled with unconditional love, so I’d say our parents did alright.
This seems totally reasonable to me. Right now the way our society is, the kids get the sh#t end of everything so that adults can have “it all”. If you stay home with your kids, your career will take a hit. If you go to work, you will miss out on quite a lot in your kids life. There are only so many hours in a day. And the “it just makes me a busy person” argument does not fly. It simply means that your kids get less time with you. You can’t prioritize everything, and when it comes between a boss and a kid, the boss will win everytime.
Work at a childcare facility or even just observe nannies at the park; kids can’t tell you how their day went. You have no idea what goes on. Having one parent around to raise their own kid does not seem like an earth shattering statement.
I agree with everything she says, and I like her because she seems level-headed and approachable. Also, I think the rom-com with Chris Evans looks cute and I LOVE that his love interest in it isn’t 18. Us late-20 somethings and 30 somethings and 40 somethings want love, too!
I love Michelle Monaghan! I first saw her in Made of Honor, and the crush set in then.
Think she looks better with darker hair, the blonde seems a little bit aging.
I love her. What a stellar career she has. Always working. And with great actors and usually good to great projects. and no bells and whistles or courting fame. Love love love her.
Maybe it’s a culturological thing, but here stay-at-home mothers get judged more than working mothers. It’s kinda expected for women to work.
I don’t know where you are, but I’m in the United States. I’ve lived in the midwestern, “flyover states,” I’ve lived all over the south. I have not lived in the more cosmopolitan north east, but everywhere I’ve lived, mothers get judged period.
Have to work? You should never have had kids you can’t afford (someone made that comment upthread, actually). Want to work? You should never have had kids if you don’t want to spend every waking moment with them. If you have a degree and choose not to work, you’re wasting your education by wiping snotty noses and singing ABCs. If you don’t have a degree and don’t work, you’re lazy, uneducated and either hitched your wagon to a man to support you OR you’re mooching off the government. If you do everything for your kids, you’re raising spoiled, entitled brats. If you encourage independence you’re negligent. If you leave the kids at home with dad so you can get some time to yourself, you’re awful for wanting or needing that time, and how DARE you ask dad to “babysit” (not parent, mind) the kids so you can get a manicure, because on top of everything else you’re vain. Oh, and also, don’t let yourself go, by not wearing makeup and living in yoga pants. And on, and on, and on…
That sound stressful, but I find that most people judge other people all the time about the most ridiculous sh*t, when it comes to parenting it seems that most of the judging comes from childless people though.
Exactly @BendyWindy! I’m so tired of pitting mothers against each other too.
“when it comes to parenting it seems that most of the judging comes from childless people though. ”
Really disagree with that. As a child-free person, my child-free friends and I have zero opinion about how y’all raise your kids. The Mommy Wars are always about one mother feeling that her way of raising her kids is better than another mother’s way. Hell, my friend (who is a mom) told me that there are websites and blogs devoted to mothers arguing about sh*t like breast-feeding, vaccines, childcare/babysitters, etc etc. Child-free people are not on mommy blogs because we’re not invested in that sh*t.
There are judgements from other parents and non-parents alike. Apparently there’s plenty of judgement to go around!!! So here’s a little from me. I would not be interested in any website devoted to arguing about vaccines. There is no argument. Responsible parents vaccinate. Full stop.
Well people in general can be judgmental. Hell, child-free people get called “selfish” all the time from people with children. I don’t understand why anyone cares what someone else chooses to do with their life, as long as they’re not hurting anyone.
Totally, BendyWindy. It is hardcore.
BendyWindy
+1000000000000
YOU NAILED IT
Also disagree. As a childless person I don’t judge. Some parents look at me and try to justify their parenting style for fear i’m judging. I look at them and say I’m in no place to judge. Kid seems fine and healthy. That’s where my concern ends on parenting approach.
Instead, I see my friends who are parents judge other parents. I’ve only seen this way. Never childless people judging parents.
@BendyWindy: sounds like you care too much about what other people think.
I don’t have to care what people think to be able to enumerate the ways in which mothers are judged in modern society. I’m perfectly happy with my choices, and if you notice, you’ll be hard pressed to tell anything about my life from what I just said. Because it doesn’t matter. Whatever modern American mothers do, someone, somewhere thinks and feels the need to tell them that they can and should be doing it different/better/etc.
@stellalovejoydiver: “when it comes to parenting it seems that most of the judging comes from childless people though”. not really sure about it, I think we all judge. At least it seems you don´t judge child-free people…you have no idea de BS we have to endure from people with children (why? and when? and why? and selfish, and oh…why? and you say that because you don´t have one, you´ll see when you have one etc etc).
Same here (Germany), when children enter kindergarten it’s pretty common that the mother’s are going back to work, at least half-time.
For most of the world and most of post-Industrial Revolution history one parent stayed home with the kids and one went out to work and, since men routinely earned more than women and couldn’t breastfeed, it was the mother who stayed home. That mindset doesn’t change overnight.
Since you can’t win either way – you’re either a selfish working mum or an unfulfilled, brain-dead stay at homer – why not just do what’s best for you and learn to ignore everyone else?
*fingers in ears* La-la-la!
Brain dead stay at homer? Plenty of brain dead jobs too.
I think Tapioca meant that’s how *some* members of society view a SAHM, she wasn’t calling SAHM “brain-dead”.
I know. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of brain dead jobs.
Totally agree. I’m going through that dilemma now. You’re screwed either way – stay at home and you’re one of “those” women who set feminism back decades, go to work and you’re a selfish parent paying someone else to raise your children. I am going to make my decision and ignore everyone. The pressure does get to you though.
It really can. It took years for me to be able to shake off the criticism of my choices for our family. Now I just feel fortunate to be in a position to make choices. It’s a luxury not afforded to everyone.
Me too, Cait!
Its a really difficult decision. Good luck to you, hope whatever you decide makes you happy!
Do what works for you and your family’s needs.
I work part-time in my field. I don’t get why more part-time, flex time, work at home, etc positions aren’t available. Why the mindset that all positions and work loads have to fit into the standard 40 hour week?
Most people have to work. Unpopular opinion here but she says in the article that she spent a month away from her young daughter. That’s a very long time. She’s wealthy and not struggling to put food on the table. I don’t understand parents who leave their children for months at a time who don’t have to. That’s got to breed a lot of resentment. It don’t buy the argument that if the kid sees you happy then they won’t mind that you’re never at home. Pipe dream. Sorry.
Well, we have no idea where the daughter stays during the times michelle is abroad. She might very well be with her father and very happy.
And she sure won’t stay wealthy if she doesn’t work and it’s pretty likely that she’ll get close to no roles if she stays away from her job for years.
+1
+2
I agree with bammer.
And even if a mother *wants* to work, it’s extremely difficult.
A co-worker just had a baby and is out on maternity leave. She told me before she left that she really wants to come back to work. However, the childcare fee for a baby in the daycare my employer has is $2600/mo. for a baby (this is in Boston). How can a woman making under $50K a year justify that?? ALL of her income would go towards childcare. So, she will probably be a SAHM – against her wishes.
Exactly. Go to work to hand it all over to a caretaker that you hope is doing the right thing by your children. In NY both parents have to really being making some serious cash to afford it, make it worthwhile and have something left over for themselves after paying the nanny. Not an easy task to accomplish with the cost of living here. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. You need the extra salary but how much will you be able to keep.
This reminds me of all the (often fake) worry surrounding if Hillary Clinton runs for/becomes president. Chelsea’s pregnant and won’t her being a grandparent get in the way.
I was just thinking about Michelle Monaghan yesterday for some reason. I thought she looked gorgeous in Source Code with Jake Gyllenhaal. She really has the sweet girl next door look even though she is 38-years-old. She’s underrated but I kinda like that she’s under the radar and doesn’t attract negative attention, just builds a solid career as an established actress without all of the gossip. I am looking forward to seeing her do more interviews in the future.
About just everything you said and I would add the couple she formed with Casey Affleck in Gone baby gone. really enjoyed her in this.
Ideally, I think it would be best to have one parent at home (whoever earns less), but many families need a dual income just to get by, so it isn’t realistic in a lot of cases.
Michelle Monaghan is beautiful. Love her.
Probably what bothers me most about this “debate” is that yet again, it is women judging other women. We already have men holding us to unrealistic expectations must we turn on each other as well?! Sheesh. Live and let live.
I’ll definitely see Fort Bliss because of the subject matter, but (and maybe I’ll be forced to eat crow one day) Michelle Monaghan is incredibly dull as an actor. Everything I’ve seen her in. She just isn’t that interesting to watch, she’s missing the indescribable “it” factor…