MovieChat Forums > The Road to Wellville (1994) Discussion > The Reason this was not well received

The Reason this was not well received


I think the parody in this movie hit too close to home for many of the entertainment establishment. Think about it, what crowd is more susceptible to ridiculous health fads and trends than the entertainment elite? Who is more likely to be duped by pseudo-science, quackery like vegetarianism, or to engage pretentiously in vapid dialogue over trendy social issues (like feminism and animal rights in this movie)?

The entertainment industry LOVES an easy target. Give them movies that gush over the virtues of someone fighting against unjust authority and they melt. Pick on religious people or conservatives and they line up with awards. But hold up a mirror to their own shallow personalities and they will snub it every time.

reply

[deleted]

Maybe people in the entertainment industry didn't like the film, but how does that explain why average filmgoers didn't go out to see it? The film got a wide theatrical release and was reasonably well publicized, so I don't see much evidence that the studios attempted to hold it back.

And by the way, at what point did vegetarianism become quackery? Most of the extreme measures portrayed in this film are obviously unhealthy, but simply not eating meat is hardly uncommon and is good for people with cholesterol problems.

reply

Maybe.

There's evidence that reducing meat in the diet will cause *some* people's cholesterol levels to go down, but there are others that benefit from eating *more* meat, and many other for whom meat intake makes no difference whatsoever.

Please, no personal anecdotes on this. Everyone can come up with a story to justify any viewpoint. My aunt actually had a friend who died as a result of quitting smoking. Her friend had had a fungal infection in her lungs that had been kept dormant for many years by the cigarette smoke she inhaled on a daily basis. By the time her doctors realized what had happened, the infection had grown too large to be controlled by smoking cigarettes again, and she died. Does this sound like a plausible reason to smoke cigarettes? Of course not. Her situation was highly unusual, and wouldn't apply to the vast majority of smokers in the world.

I pay attention to studies, and how they're conducted, and there's enough discrepancy out there regarding cholesterol levels that I'm not ready to give up, or start eating, anything, with an expectation of an exact result. Genetics seems to be the most stable factor in predicting health and longevity, despite the miracles of science and medicine.

Have you seen the movie "Lorenzo's Oil"? disclaimer: yes, the movie suggests that the life saving oil is far more effective than it has turned out to be in reality, but it certainly seems to do more good than the low fat diet that was the only accepted treatment previously.

Augusto Odone, is the father of Lorenzo, a boy afflicted with ALD (Adrenoleukodistrophy). Lorenzo's body is unable to process certain types of fats that are present (along with fats with different molecular structures) in food. The treatment applied to these boys is a diet that is severely restricted in fat intake, but the treatment has very little, if any, effects. Odone studies biochemistry to try to find some other method of treating his son. He finds a chemist who is working on extracting the harmful oils from olive oil, leaving only those with the benign molecular structure.

Okay, sorry, just had to throw that in to explain this part. Odone's hypothesis is that, by restricting all oils and fats from his son's diet, his body reacts by making *more* fats in order to compensate for the lack that human bodies need to work properly. By feeding him the "safe" oil, his body responds by stopping production of excess fat, because it now perceives that he has enough.

Any of this seem to explain why the Atkins diet is so effective for so many people? Or why people on extremely low fat diets often put on more body fat, no matter how severely they restrict themselves?

My point is, there is no Holy Grail of health. There is no hard and fast rule that benefits every person. People like the idea that there's some rule that they can follow blindly, that will miraculously make them thinner, healthier, or happier, because it absolves them of the necessity of thought. We talk about fad diets, like low carb, or juice fasting, or countless others, but the medical community spouts as many fad diets as Hollywood does, and that is the very mindset that this film parodies. Elinor doesn't consider that she might be cheating on her husband, because the man that is giving her sexual satisfaction is a *Doctor*, and grown men sit in water baths with electrical current being run through them, because they've been prescribed them by a *Doctor*. My own medical problems in the last few years have taught me something of vital importance; following anyone's advice blindly is foolish and lazy, even if they have the title of Doctor and a string of diplomas on their wall. Think for yourself, see what actually works for *you*, and don't assume that what works for you will do any good for anyone else... in other words, don't preach your lifestyle unless you're willing to take responsibility for those that it doesn't suit or help.

reply

There's evidence that reducing meat in the diet will cause *some* people's cholesterol levels to go down, but there are others that benefit from eating *more* meat, and many other for whom meat intake makes no difference whatsoever.

Yeah, right! You say "Please, no personal anecdotes on this" and yet you manage to through two of those in just for the sake of being fair and balanced.

'There's evidence that reducing meat in the diet will cause *some* people's cholesterol levels to go down'
actually it is MOST people and by most I don't mean 51 or 62%, I mean over 95. There are other issues of course and cholesterol level is only one of them. But most ( >95%) people can and do benefit from reducing eliminating meat (AND eggs AND dairy since all of them contain cholesterol). And not a few personal anecdotes nor hearsay or urban legends back them up, but countless wellness centers, sanitoriums, that operate on these principles for decades, Dr. Ornish's 1990 study and of course the groundbreaking China study.

So hold your horses a little bit, sir.

reply

Of course I meant 'manage to throw two of those in'!

reply

[deleted]

i agree. think "art school confidential."

http://www.reasons.org

reply

I agree with Marklansing that vegetarianism is hardly quackery (there's plenty of scientific evidence that not eating meat can be healthier - although I won't be doing it!), and I don't think Feminism and animal welfare are merely "trendy social issues" either. However, I do think the film is critical of the smugness supporters of these ideals sometimes display.

Of course, there are plenty of other genuine pseudo-science and quackery references in the film.

reply

Plus in the book, it is clear that the cornflake guy was very mean to animals. He got that poor wolf to become a vegetarian by whipping her any time she came near meat and the all fruit and vegetable diet he forced on her made her very sick.

reply

and he was mean to the chimp he kept too, but that wasn't in the movie

reply

I thought the same thing when I saw the movie. It made fun of elites who easily fall for whatevers trendy at the moment and that led to tons of bad reviews. They saw themselves reflected in rich people paying big money to have yoghurt enemas, wearing special German electric masturbation belts, and getting handebunded.

But I think it was a box office flop because ordinary moviegoers had never heard of John Harvey Kellog and had no interest in seeing a period piece comedy about his antics.

The bad reviews helped that along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlHrbixS7Ws

reply

1. Roger Ebert believed the targets of this satire would enjoy it the most.

2. I actually think Hollywood liberals get off on making fun of themselves. So many movies/shows (especially in recent years critiquing/making fun of rich liberals/"wokeness" made by and starring "woke" Hollywood liberals.

3. Some of these new-agey, health nut and other far-left types have teamed up with right-wingers over vaccines, COVID, idiotic conspiracy theories and certain anti-establishment issues.

reply