I do not mean to strike the film's premises down, but I see the situation differently.
I actually don't see the revolutionary changes in family relations as something that will be determined by the court system that it can even go to the Supreme Revolutionary Tribunal...that's the right name of the highest court of appeal. That's too...United States-like. Too infused by bourgeois sensibilities too. This is the UASR, a state in transition to full communist relations and where most of the differences of intergovernmental and intragovernmental procedure and judicial procedure have also became blurred. The old separation of powers is gone as well as the centralization of the bourgeois nation-state.
I see it as something that happens on a place to place basis and determined by Soviet law, rather than interpretations of a legal or civil code by the court system, given that Soviet democracy gives absolute political power to the Soviet congresses, which is more like to be seen in local government than at the highest levels, but it's fine. The First Cultural Revolution already set the tone.... the Second Cultural Revolution just makes the destruction of the nuclear family as hegemonic and seen as normal, rather than a controversial debate.
Common-law marriages, American-style, seems to be the development and Soviets may produce different family registration systems that will be standardized...or not, it certainly depends on the place. Certain Soviet jurisdictions may resist and preserve as much as the traditional family structures as they can, like using the block-grants by the federal government to implement welfare redistribution on a family basis, as well as complicated procedures on divorces and other measures, but this is where the younger generations come in and challenge such restrictions. That's the Second Cultural Revolution.
As already told us, the First Cultural Revolution seems more of a grassroots phenomenon in strong Red Soviet centers of the country while seemingly forced on the peripheral areas that were conquered by Red Armies during the Civil War.
Another thing about Soviet American judiciary, jury nullification is the rule, so judges do not really make the decisions, but juries coming from the general population that was trained in school to become part of juries.
In terms of child custody and other matters of family law, it depends on the place, but I do not expect such regression of communist developments by 1968 in urban America, even in urban South.
The determination of the child's best interest is certainly tricky... but I do not see the drama on developments on rulings in terms of child custody to develop in such a way.
You may also choose a different place for the film...but it's really different. It's not going to be that way.
I guess I made a mistake the American judicial system would not have changed as a result of the 1933 Revolution.
I based the story based on there still being things like family courts and state courts OTL, and how the judges are usually old white guys who end up tearing apart happy families because of their archaic ideas on what a family should be.
Yes, but not in urban South, as I've mentioned....I expect urban America to be really super-progressive. The rural Mountain West may be the place that still practice close to bourgeois social norms, as explained by Jello... but not even the South anymore by 2015 ITTL.
By 1968, maybe places in rural South can still be more "conservative" but nevertheless... as I am saying, the film tries to focus on using a court system that no longer works that way to discuss cases that may not even need to reach the highest court of the land. It's just different.
Doesn't matter... I guess. The film is still fun to imagine, but given my case of imagining it... personally, I find it hard to imagine without my head telling me that there's something wrong with the setting.
I really thought Louisiana would be the perfect place for this kind of story, from those legal circumstances. The old grandmother is a resident of Shreveport Louisiana, which I imagine is still a very conservative place. While New Orleans, where Stephanie and Emily grew up, is indeed a very liberal and open place. So much so that residents of Shreveport refer to it as "300 square miles (yes I know there is a metric system)" surrounded by reality.
There is thus a clear contrast between the two major characters. Elaine Purdy is old woman who came of age, before the revolution, and thus has old ideas about what is a decent and what isn't, and whose morals were torn asunder by the changes following the Second Civil War. She disowned her daughter for embracing those changes. (Emily, for example, has both her parents' last names), and continues to live and Shreveport surrounded by people who will sympathetic to her viewpoint. To Elaine, Stephanie is an embodiment of what went wrong in America, and because of that, is completely blind to how loving Stephanie is, or how she's been good for Emily's development. So she wants to take her granddaughter away from these "bad" influences.
Stephanie, meanwhile, is someone who many ways represents the Second Cultural Revolution. She's politically active, she engages in free love and believes marriage an oppressive institution, she partakes in recreational drugs, and has a career in which she can help the development of society by being a professional second mom. But a lot of her behavior is the result of a childhood. She was born to reactionary and abusive parents, in a close-minded town in Mississippi, and she determined to live the exact opposite of how they would want her to live. To Stephanie, Elaine, this old lady from the country, is an unpleasant reminder of the world she came from. She projects her hatred of her parents on Elaine, ignoring that she's a lot better than them.
The conflict arises because while the city of New Orleans is tolerant of Stephanie, and her loving relationship with Emily, the courts of the Louisiana republic are still packed with old white guys from rural Lousiana who are more sympathetic toward Elaine's viewpoint.
I did feel that Louisiana, because of these regional and generational clashes, would be the perfect place for this kind of story. But if you can think of a more appropriate place, I'm all ears.
