The battle for best picture at the Oscars could offer a microcosm of the battle for the soul of America. Will the academy celebrate itself with LaLaLand - a film that celebrates Hollywood and the escapism of the limelight? Or will it look beyond its borders and recognise a remarkable film that raises huge questions about poverty, identity, hope and belonging?
Lion is a beautifully told story about a five-year-old lost boy in India and his adoption. It's visually stunning and emotionally eviscerating. I believe not only that the academy should recognise Lion, but that you should see it too. I plan to avoid spoilers and will give away nothing that is not told to us in the film's trailer.
First of all this is a film that asks questions about poverty. Some might accuse the film of vicarious slum tourism. As we follow the stories of Saroo and Guddu and Kamla through the challenges of the poverty of India's shadows we are exposed to the precariousness of life for some of the world's poorest people. Personally I did not feel the film was exploitative but rather it accomplishes the rare feat of building such an emotional connection between the audience and the characters it is hard not to want to do something to change their circumstances.
Watching this film will give you a real feel for the fragility of life for our fellow human beings. It raised questions for me about how we treat people in the streets that ask for our help. Watching this film through my fingers, I kept wondering what if this was one of my children? It challenged me to recognise that each person caught up in tragedy carries a backstory and so when we come across people in need we should be quick to listen and slow to judge. It forces us to think about what is the best way we can help relieve poverty, or lift people out of poverty?
The film directs its audience to a specific way to help the street children of India through supporting a charity called www.lostones However there are many other organisations that are seeking to help vulnerable children in orphanages around the world find loving local adoptive families, or fight poverty.
Secondly, this is a film that asks questions about identity. In a week when Madonna adopts twins from Malawi, Lion asks tough questions about the ethics of international adoption, and the implications on a child's sense of identity, heritage and history.
I watched Lion with a group of 50 adoptive parents in the mountains of Romania, 200 kilometres north of Bucharest. Many of them had adopted children out of orphanages, often with disabilities and complex needs. In many ways it was an ideal audience to watch the film with and it was hard to find someone at the end of the film who wasn't deeply moved and in tears for a variety of reasons.
At the heart of this film is an international adoption from India to Australia. Nicole Kidman turns in an impressive performance as a loving but struggling adoptive mother. The film acknowledges this adoptive mother's best intentions but still questions the benefits of transplanting children from one culture to another.
There is currently a large movement around the world but particularly in the USA towards international adoption. This is not just for celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie but for sincere Christian believers who are keen to make a difference in the lives of vulnerable children. International adoption is surely better than institutionalisation of vulnerable children through orphanages, care homes or children's villages. International adoption can offer a genuine forever family for children who have had a very difficult start to life. I have close friends who have chosen this path whom I admire greatly.
However the film Lion raises critical and important questions about this practice. What if the children that are being adopted from orphanages are not, in fact, orphans? What if those children who end up in orphanages are not necessarily those who have no parental or familial connections. What if there are surviving family members who might be able to care for the child if they were given support? What if the best outcome for the child is not relocation to another country? What if international adoption, by seeking to erase instead of affirm, a child's identity, heritage and history, actually does more harm than good?
Studies in the UK of the long term effects of transnational adoption highlight some of the very many additional challenges that children who do not share the same cultural or ethnic identity as their adoptive parents face. So when people ask me if they should adopt a child from another country, I am usually hesitant. There are some rare situations when I do encourage people to consider international adoption. Those parents who are committed to living long term in the country they are seeking to adopt from, or who have spent significant time living in that country. Those adopters who share an ethnic or linguistic heritage with the children they are thinking of adopting. Those people living in countries where adoption is non-existent - for example in Australia and Holland.
For the most part I encourage adopters to adopt from within their own countries. In the United States there are more than 100,000 children available for adoption from foster care. The UK has around 4000 children waiting to be adopted. Usually, the domestic adoption system is free, relatively quick, and provides ongoing support. As I watched Lion with my Romanian friends, I was very aware of the financial aspect of international adoption. For the amount of money being spent in the legal process for each international adoption, perhaps ten children could be supported for adoption locally where their culture, language and heritage could have been more easily maintained.
This is not meant to be a criticism of those who have adopted internationally. Many have made sacrificial decisions to look after extremely vulnerable children and they deserve our love, support and respect. They know better than me the many challenges that is involved in cross-cultural parenting. Also, like them, I am committed to helping the plight of vulnerable children internationally. I believe that we as Christians should be campaigning to have unaccompanied asylum-seeking children welcomed into homes and families in the UK, rather than left to fend for themselves and vulnerable to traffiking and worse. I believe we should be encouraging churches globally to close down the orphanages and children's villages on their doorsteps and offer the children homes within loving families.
Watching Lion will break your heart. It will make you want to go and hug your children. It will plant a burning desire in you that no child should not be left destitute and at the mercy of those that will take advantage of them. It will ignite an anger in you about the state of institutional care. Yet it will also give you a glimpse of the power of adoption whilst recognising the challenges involved too. Lion is a grown-up film about some issues that affect us all- identity, history, tragedy and family. But it is also a film about some issues that should make an impact on all of us: the plight of the millions of vulnerable children around our world, the long-term impact of childhood trauma, the failings of institutional care and the need for family.
So this weekend, I am going to be cheering for Lion. I would love it to roar at the Oscars and open the world's eyes to the needs of vulnerable children. Watch this film, it will change you and it will help change the lives of children.
Dr Krish Kandiah is the Founder and Director of Home for Good - a charity committed to finding homes for every child who needs one. Join us here
