MovieChat Forums > The Constant Gardener (2005) Discussion > you all missed the point - watch the mov...

you all missed the point - watch the movie again

posted 17 years ago by marwashabbar
58 replies | jump to latest

it is disappointing to see that so many people are not moved by this movie. you have all clearly missed the point.

this movie is about us, the self centred humanity. we have made the third world, the gini pigs of civilization and the scape goat of every possible sin know to man. and all of you are doing it again, turning a blind eye to the message the movie was carrying. no it is not impossible that big drug companies test their new drugs on Africans. the people living in developed countries are not willing to test knew drugs so drug companies got to the third world where the rate of disease is high and people have no other choice but to try the desease for thats all they have (it's a donation). then these drug companies would sell the drugs to these countries hiding any side effect. and people are stll forced to use it because there is no alternative. beside, drug companies were not the main target of the movie. it's the people ignorance that was the goal. we know the facts we have the evidance yet we stand up and say "there are no murders in Africa, only regretable deaths". it sickness me to see that so many people are criticizing the movie when they should be praising it.

what kills me is that there are those people who say, that this film was an entire myth, and africans are not the gini pigs of civilization but merely the less fortunate people of the globe.

if you thought that this movie was bad then think again and perhaps watch it again. if you still think it's bad then you are emotionless

[–] regdricos 17 years ago

An honourable subject maketh not a good film.

Film media has a duty to entertain, in parallel to any informing or propagandising it's effecting.

This was didactic, fallacious, and clumsy.

;0)

Ricos.

[–] marwashabbar 17 years ago

a film doesn't have to be comedy to entertain. and no films are not meant to entertain people they are meant to touch them in a special way that makes the audiance connected to the storyline in some way. that's what makes films successful, the ability to effect and influnce the audiance. that's what the constant gardener tried to do. they didn't overspend to creat a flashy movie that would attract people, they tried to gripp their audiance through the important storyline. they believed that the third world situation was important enough for all audiance clearly they were wrong. By the way documentries don't entertain but they have become widely popular in todays society because they express valued points about the globe, this is not a documentry but it had a documentry plot with exciting preformance which allowed it to be called a movie

[–] regdricos 17 years ago

But many documentaries do entertain.

And absolutely the duty of cinematic media is to entertain - what nonsense to suggest otherwise.

;0)

Ricos.

[–] marwashabbar 17 years ago

define entertaine then.

is there a scale on which that you cam measure the amount of entertainment, besides you said it yourself, most documentries entretain but not all so is this movie. why wasn't the movie entertaining anyway, if you define entertainment by good logical story then the constant gardener was great and if you define it by preformace then the cast preformance was great, if you define entertainment as a film that would keep some one watching who can't focus for longer than 5 minutes then i'll say that you have problem with your patience not the film.

maybe you missed the point or effect of the movie i suggest you watch it again, i know it's hard but it's worth it

[–] nyki_09 17 years ago

Look I get what marwashabbar is trying to say

You can say whatever you want about an unlikely plotline, or vilinizing drug companies but the bottom line is the film was trying to have positive effect on us and how we view the world. It was fascinating, and I enjoyed watching it. Sometimes you need to just throw your own personal opinions out the window from time to time, it wasn't like they were trying to shove a certain view down our throat. Sheesh.

[–] regdricos 17 years ago

"it wasn't like they were trying to shove a certain view down our throat. Sheesh."

Were they not...?!?

Could have fooled me...

;0)

Ricos.

[–] davethejackal 17 years ago

Perhaps they were shoving certain facts down your throat but the movie never professed to be showing a full picture just a small slice of it.

[–] usual_please 17 years ago

why do people bother saying that plotlines in movie are unbelievable. when you walk into a cinema you are susposed to suspend belief and not take the film so seriously. it doesnt have to be realistic to get a point across.

this movie was tops.

A is for Anna. B is for Brutus. H is for THE HIVES!!

[–] marwashabbar 17 years ago

applause

[–] waiting_for_inman 17 years ago

I agree to a point, but it's "suspend disbelief." To maintain the suspension of disbelief, the plot must at least be true to itself - to the world created in the film. The events in the plot of this movie were completely credible to me.

[–] cleansing 15 years ago

Good point, usal_please!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leafer11 17 years ago

Please stop exaggerating the criticism...

Movies have themes. When these themes are well-illustrated, they bear an impact. How unfortunate for you that you just wanted to see a film and not think for two hours, instead you were forced to contemplate a very real and palpable tragedy that currently takes place.

Government-sponsored militia are currently roaming around the countryside in Sudan committing acts of genocide, and have been for YEARS.

Western presence only manifests itself in money-making corporations with seldom little regard for ordinary civilians.

Even if this SPECIFIC plot line is untrue, it doesn't absolve us of our responsibility.

If you didn't like the film, found it poorly written or badly acted or whatever, then that's fine. I will accept that. What bothers me is the many individuals who find themselves feeling uncomfortable with the corporate world's relationship to Africa (which has been a disaster for Africans from day 1) and so come up with any pretext whatsoever to criticize a certain view. That way, they can go back to watching their big screen tvs, playing on their computers and largely ignoring the plight of humankind which only worsens with every day.

Shame on them.

Incidentally, the movie is excellent not only because of this theme but because it works very well as a love story and the acting is excellent. Bill Nighy as Pellegrin, and the lead actors all deserve the highest praise.

[–] regdricos 17 years ago

Oh yawn!

;0)

Ricos.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jingizu_z 12 years ago

Yes, typical response of the "haves" that don't give a flying *beep* about the world, its life and our own human species. Just as long as you can live in relative luxury, nothing else matters, neh.

[–] marwashabbar 17 years ago

applause

[–] zara_04 17 years ago

this movie has message which some movies simply doesn't contain. It's moving and actual. The main thing is what result people will make for themselves after watching it. If you get the idea - good. If not...

[–] gbjornsson 16 years ago

perhaps this is a dead thread, I was just shocked by your comment
cinema is made to entertain?
I suggest you re evaluate your claim, and deem it to be nonsense
if cinema would be made merely to entertain, I wouldn't be interested. what about to inform, to intrigue?
is realist cinema entertainment?
I should hope not, if it is...then it's not doing a very good job.
I absolutely loved this film, people have different tastes, yes, but to deem this clumsy because it does not leave you feeling jolly...is a bit immature, don't you think?

[–] regdricos 16 years ago

You have, unfortunately, misread my comments: "if cinema would be made merely to entertain,"

- and then conflated two ideas to put words in my mouth: "but to deem this clumsy because it does not leave you feeling jolly."

I respond to the first point: cinema has a duty to entertain, not merely, but alongside any other agenda it may be promoting. Otherwise it risks losing its audience, which this film did, as far as I was concerned.

Point two: the film wasn't clumsy because it didn't leave me feeling jolly; it was clumsy because it was clumsy, thrusting its agenda down your throat like "African Exploitation 101."

And as for your assumption that entertainment = jolliness, what twaddle!

Cinematic entertainment is something which stimulates, rather than irritates, whether jolly, melancholy or simply engaging.

This didactic stodge left me in need of a mental enema, sadly.

Anyhow, each to his own.

;0)

Ricos.

[–] jd-276 12 years ago

An honourable subject maketh not a good film.

Film media has a duty to entertain, in parallel to any informing or propagandising it's effecting.

This was didactic, fallacious, and clumsy.

;0)

Ricos.

Where was it "fallacious"?

[–] sharpnova 11 years ago

"This was didactic, fallacious, and clumsy."

And with this you sealed your membership into the halls of hipster pseudointellectualism.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TriumphReq 8 years ago

The movie is a thinly veiled allegory told as a fictional documentary to illustrate a very real horror going on. Sorry to be redundant old chap but since you seem to be in the fog a bit it needed explaining.

The film is excellent. Far better than the English Patient that received awards.

[–] Factory_Girl 17 years ago

I didn't take the drug testing as the point of the film. For me, it's the love story and what love can motivate you to do.

"We're wrecking like trains."

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Citizenright1 17 years ago

Jesus, it's "guinea pig" already.

[–] Simon-140 8 years ago

That, or quite a caustic pun on "Gini," as in the Gini Cefficient.

____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep*

[–] mfbrutha 17 years ago

Regdricos, lay off the playstation, man. You're sounding like a moron to the rest of us.

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

I kinda agree with many of the points regdricos has made.

Yes, the situation the movie depicted is deplorable, and we all should be aware of it, and we all should try to do something about it. And there's stimulation and value to be had from having it brought to our attention.

But that's just as appropriate to a magazine article as a movie, and probably more so. If you write a magazine article, you have to shape and order and structure your information to make your point and lead the reader through your logic. If you're going to put it into a movie format, as a dramatic fiction especially rather than as a documentary, then there are different forms and approaches relevant to that format that must be observed for it to work. Dramatic structure, character development, a point of (self-)interest for the observer ... otherwise you don't engage the viewer's attention, energy or imagination, no matter how worthy or urgent the subject matter.

And I don't think "Constant Gardener" achieved that.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] la_wana 17 years ago

if you really want to get worked up about something, check out the malaria epedemic. it is worse tham aids and way more controlable. No one cares though, we are too self absorbed. I did love this movie, it had a good message.

[–] the_watcher22 16 years ago

I believe the point of this film is to encourage people to change their perspective. Justin, at the beginning, is passive, and feels any effort he can provide for an African person would be futile. As the movie progresses, his view changes, as he grows (another meaning behind the title) into a more active person, like Tessa. This film teaches us to care more.

[–] taylorje 14 years ago

Justin did change his perspective. Remember earlier in the movie, when Tessa wanted to give a lift to the people, and Justin said no? Tessa said "These, we can help." And at the end, when Justin wanted to take the African child aboard the plane, he said just what Tessa had: "This is one we can help."

[–] pigpau_connie 16 years ago

I just watched this film, I'm speechless but the tears keep on rolling on my face. I think I would much prefer Tessa to be a simply wife, take care of his husband and raise kids etc.....life would be much easier then. Anyway, it touches me and it's a great movie.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]