The Constant Gardner

[msmcghee]

I just saw this movie - and it's good. I'm sure others here have seen it now too.

The ethical question underlying the plot seemed to me to be: informed consent. That is, there could be some argument as to whether thousands of desperately poor black Africans who had AIDS and who would all be dead in a few years at most - should worry about the possible deadly side effects of an experimental drug that they were receiving from a British pharma company to treat their TB. But, it was not up to the British government, or the Kenyan government or the British pharma company to make that decision. It was up to the patients themselves - and they were never given that choice.

It occurred to me that the Roberts hearings suffer from the same ethical lapse. That is, we are being asked to take a medicine in the form of a new Supreme Court Justice and we will have to live with that medicine - no matter how poorly or well it serves us. Yet, any and all information as to the true nature of this medicine (John Roberts) is being purposely withheld from us.

We're being told to "Take this, it's good for you" - with no explanation of the possible side effects. We're being told we have no right to know who John Roberts is.

What is really astounding to me is the arrogance of Bush and his corrupt enablers to take it upon themselves to decide just how much information we are entitled to. The constitution says the senate shall "advise and consent" to the nomination. How could they have possibly meant "advise and uninformed consent"? Any comments?

BTW - The movie is also a really well done love story.

[CTyankee]

1. Beautifully acted

but a little slow. However, the Africans were so touching and and beautiful, it more than made up for the glacial pace. It's a very good movie.

[fortyfeetunder]

2. Yes, saw it last night

The government is banking on us to accept their word as unquestioned gospel (hence the blurring between church and state), and not even think of the consequences.

Reading Free Republic shows it's entirely possible.

[fortyfeetunder]

3. Self deleted- dupe

[kid a]

4. Loved the movie . . . like your analogy . . . and just as (spoiler)

there was another pharma co ready to take over when the first was busted ... there's another Roberts around the corner.

[StellaBlue]

5. Love story

:puke:

Okay, now that I got that out of the way - did the love story actually add to the film, or was it the usual shameless misplaced ploy supposedly needed to get women into the theater for a serious/war/guy movie?

I HATE ROMANTIC SUBPLOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

grrrr

:)

[msmcghee]

6. I thought it added a whole lot.

Especially the way he was given so much reason to believe she was unfaithful - yet refused to believe it at first. And then he finally started to accept the possibility. And the guilt he felt because of doubting her.

I think the relationship mirrored the elements of trust and betrayal in the over-plot. I'd much rather see relationship elements treated this way than as the main reason for the movie. (But I agree that in many movies the love angles are gratuitous just to get the girls in the door ;-)

I think their relationship finally caused him to see how completely he had betrayed his values for his government - and that's what caused this particular ending (which I won't describe out of respect for those who haven't seen it yet).

I can attest that losing a loved one makes you re-examine everything in your life.

On edit: A war guy movie? I can't remember any shots being fired - except for the one sequence in the desert camp when it was attacked by the bandits. But that wasn't war. That was killing innocent people.

[StellaBlue]

7. ...

Re: war/guy movie - I didn't mean this movie; I meant that all mainstream, mass-marketed 'action' type movies (ostensibly created for a 'male audience' by the studio powers-that-be) have a stupid, utterly predictable, totally unnecessary romantic subplot.

Do those things every get ANY women to go see a movie they wouldn't otherwise see? NO! And it ruins the action part of the movie, too! So then it's an action movie with a boring, pointless romantic subplot. And therefore neither a good action movie nor a good romantic movie (not that there are many of those anyway, IMHO).

I just wonder who these women are who see the silly subplot in some Nicolas Cage bomb-em-up blockbuster and think, 'Ooh - I want to see THAT because I just have ot know if sweaty, evildoing Nicolas Cage marries that anonymous Latino girl he met in the diner in the clip I saw on Jay Leno.'

Seriously.

:puke:

Having said that, I was hoping the Constant Gardener would be heavyweight enough to have a well-integrated romantic subplot. Which I take your word for - that's why I was asking. Ralph Fiennes usually makes good movies. I still can't figure out what the hell he was doing in Maid in Manhattan, though.

:rofl:

[Melodybe]

8. Haven't seen it yet, but it looks awesome!

I love Fiennes and Weitz!

[JanMichael]

9. Great story, I love LeCarre, but that film style sucks.

The "Man on Fire" treatment that must be intended to cause seizures...

I hope to hell it isn't used with Absolute Friends.