The complexity of Philomena's story is definitely more heavily nuanced than the film portrays. Neither the film nor the book gave me the impression that her son was grateful to the nuns involved. In a 2009 article for The Guardian, Sixsmith says:"He went back to Roscrea, first in 1977 and again in 1993, to plead with the nuns to tell him how to find his mother. They turned him away."On his return to the US, he plunged into alcohol, drugs and unbridled sexual indulgence. His behaviour brought with it the terrible fear of exposure that would destroy him as a senior Republican official, but he could not stop himself. On one of his lost weekends he became infected with HIV."He and Pete, his long-term partner, agonised over their future. Pete stood by him, but Michael's health began to deteriorate. Fearing the worst, they flew to Roscrea in 1993 to make an emotional appeal to the nuns ... but still they refused to tell him where he could find his mother, or indeed that her sisters and brother – his aunts and uncle – were living just a few miles down the road."In desperation, Mike asked the mother superior if he could at least be buried in the convent if he were to die: he would put enough information on his gravestone to help his mother find out about his life "if ever she comes looking for me". As we know – but Mike did not – Philomena was looking for him, returning to Roscrea, seeking traces of her son ..."https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/19/catholic-church-sold-child?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16225886769286&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2009%2Fsep%2F19%2Fcatholic-church-sold-child
Phil Kay ● 1689d