Summary Of The Movie 'Jumping The Broom'

Movie Synopsis
Edmonds et al. (2011) film, Jumping the Broom, is a light-hearted comedy about two African American families joining together for a wedding weekend to celebrate the marriage of Jason Taylor and Sabrina Watson at her wealthy family’s estate in Massachusetts. After Jason and Sabrina meet in Manhattan, the two start dating, and a short five months later they become engaged. Jason comes from a blue-collar family in Brooklyn, but became a successful businessman working on Wall Street. Jason’s mother, Pam Taylor, is a postal worker and is deemed as lower class, whereas Sabrina’s parents, Claudine and Greg Watson, both come from wealthy families and lead an upper class lifestyle. When the two families’ get together for the first time

at Sabrina’s family’s estate on Martha’s Vineyard, their class division becomes quite apparent and conflict quickly ensues.
Not only does the movie demonstrate typical old-fashioned family drama, but it also illustrates a more recent stressor that many African American families are experiencing in this day and age. According to Price, Price, and McKenry (2010) the intragroup diversity among African Americans is growing, in that there are more African Americans among the middle and upper class now than ever before in United States history. This change in socioeconomic status has had a major impact for many African Americans, in which the increasing diversity has created significant social and economic tensions within their ethnic community (Price et al., 2010). Jumping the Broom has illustrated this recent phenomenon by showing viewers just how much the changing socioeconomic status can impact family relationships and the family system (Edmonds et al., 2011). The stressors associated with division of class between the Taylor and Watson families are particularly salient throughout the duration of the film. Viewers are shown many of these correlated stressors, and how they can cause major ramifications in the lives of today’s African American families.
Application of Terms
Carter and McGoldrick’s (1988) stage model of the family life cycle is a useful framework for understanding the transitional process in which families grow and develop throughout the lifespan. Stage 2 in the family life cycle focuses on “the joining of families through marriage” (Carter & McGoldrick, 1988, p. 15). Sabrina and Jason are engaged and have made a commitment to one another, as they plan for their marriage ceremony and wedding weekend at the Watson family’s estate. Within the relationship system of Sabrina and Jason, the couple will form a new subsystem (e.g., the marital system). Throughout the film, the couple attempts to successfully transition into this life cycle stage, but struggles in accomplishing the task of realigning their relationships with family members and close friends. For example, EXAMPLE NEEDED HERE! After Sabrina and Jason meet each other’s families for the first time, they quickly realize that both in-laws and extended family members are exceedingly intrusive regarding their newly established relationship (Edmonds et al., 2011).
While Sabrina and Jason are entering Stage 2 of the family life cycle, both of their parents are simultaneously experiencing Stage 7, which is labeled as the launching center, and focuses on “accepting exists from and entries into the family” (Becvar & Becvar, 1999, p. 61). The major tasks of this stage involve developing adult-to-adult relationships between grown children and their parents, releasing adult children into marriage, and realigning relationships to include in-laws (Becvar & Becvar, 1999; Carter & McGoldrick, 1988). According to Carter and McGoldrick (1988) this particular stage is considered to be one of the most challenging transitions in the family life cycle model. This is especially true for Jason’s mother, Pam, as she appears to dwell on the loss of her late husband and still struggles to acknowledge the parent-child relationship with her son as an adult parent-to-adult child relationship. During an argument with his mother, Jason addresses this issue by stating:
You treat me like I’m either a little boy or your husband. And I’m neither. I am a man and I am your son. And I promised you that I will always be here for you. And that hasn’t changed. But you have got to change. You’ve got to change, Mom. (Edmonds et al., 2011, 1:27:36)
This example also demonstrates the concept of family rules, which are represented by the repeated patterns between two or more family members (Becvar & Becvar, 1999). These patterns of relationship are reflective of many aspects between family member interactions, including members’ behaviors, roles, emotions, etc. (Chibucos, Leite, & Weis, 2005). As shown in the dispute example provided above, this family rule uniquely defines the nature of Pam and Jason’s relationship.
Becvar and Becvar (1999) have suggested that relationship style labeling is also an important feature in observing and understanding these unique patterns of interactions among family members. Scholars have labeled these relationship styles as complementary, symmetrical, or parallel (Becvar & Becvar, 1999). Complementary relationships are categorized by higher rates of the opposite kind of exchanged behaviors, whereas symmetrical relationships are categorized by higher rates of the same kind of exchanged behaviors (Becvar & Becvar, 1999). Jason and Sabrina’s relationship style can be identified as a parallel relationship, which “includes a combination of both complementary and symmetrical behaviors” (Becvar & Becvar, 1999, p. 31). Throughout the film, the couple consistently demonstrates a well-functioning relationship by equally sharing power dynamics, showing respect and consideration for each other, and equally taking responsibility for their actions when they disagreed. In comparison to symmetrical behaviors, their relationship is characterized by more exchanges of complementary behaviors. The complementary interactional patterns most often seen between the couple involves that of the pursuer/distancer and the logical one/emotional one.
For example, the night of their bachelor – bachelorette party Jason and Sabrina get into an argument at the bar because she’s ready to go home and he is not ready to leave.

Sabrina tells Jason that they should all go home because the wedding is the next day. Jason responds by saying, “For you to ask me to just walk out is kind of rude” (Edmonds et al., 2011, 1:05:18). Surprised by Jason’s response, Sabrina emotionally replies, “I can’t believe you’re doing this in front of everybody” and storms out of the bar alone (Edmonds et al., 2011, 1:05:28). Jason decides to continue hanging out with his friends and enjoy his bachelor party. Back at the Watson’s estate later that night, Jason tries to confront Sabrina regarding their argument earlier in the evening. Sabrina immediately runs upstairs to her bedroom and shuts the door before Jason is able to stop her. From outside her door Jason shouts, “Come on, open up, Sabrina. I just wanna talk to you” (Edmonds et al., 2011, 1:09:05). Sabrina does not open the door, and Jason tells her that he will wait all night if he has to (Edmonds et al., 2011,

1:09:11).
Another concept central to systems thinking is that of boundaries, which holds significant meaning within this film.

According to Chibucos et al. (2005) boundaries are found in every family system. Boundaries define the family system based on the amount of permeability (i.e., the inflow and outflow of information) allowed into the system (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Becvar and Becvar (1999) have indicated that the degree of permeability also specifies the openness or closedness of the family system (i.e., the boundary’s level of flexibility). It is important to note that all family systems are considered open systems, as the system will always experience some type of interaction with the environment. Thus, it is the degree of openness that dictates family members’ ability to adapt and change in a changing environment, which can differ greatly across systems (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). For this reason, both the Watson family and the Taylor family are considered as open systems, but each have distinct boundaries that differentiate one from the other. In the film, the union of Jason and Sabrina represent the process of boundary formation in which each family member will soon become a part of each other’s family system. In particular, Pam and Claudine (the matriarchs of the families) are both highly critical of each other’s system as well as the acceptance of new family members. Throughout the film, each of them resists accepting and adapting to the changing

environment; however, as the wedding weekend progresses the degree of openness in both systems becomes more flexible, and the families willingly accept the other’s once unacceptable behavior patterns and family values.
In addition to the concept of open and closed systems, boundaries also function as the point of contact between the family system and its subsystems and suprasystems (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Suprasystems encompass the larger family system and either the community, social-cultural, or natural physical-biological system environments (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Relational subsystems, including the marital, parental, parent-child, and sibling subsystems, are all comprised within the larger family system. These subsystems are layered within the larger family system, and are distinguished by hierarchical arrangement (Price et al., 2010). If the hierarchical structure of subsystems is arranged clearly within a family system, individual family members are able to determine which subsystem holds the most power (i.e., decision-making authority), at which point the subsystems then function accordingly. Within the Taylor’s family system, their subsystems contain Pam (parental) as well as Jason and Pam (parent-child). Within the Watson’s family system, their subsystems include Claudine and Greg (parental, marital), Claudine and Sabrina (parent-child), and lastly Greg and Sabrina (parent-child). In terms of hierarchical arrangement, the parental dyad within each of their family’s system appears to exert more power over the other subsystems in regard to the behaviors and interactional patterns between family members.
Not only do boundaries define the system, but also act as “the point of interface between the family and its environment (Chibucos et al., 2005, p. 280).