ignominia-1 wrote:
What you are saying is that a movie, a drama to begin with - and drama means overly emphasized emotions- will dictate how you'd react to a diagnosis of cancer?
Get real.
There is a big difference between art and life and this was definitely art. And to make a point in the drama a writer or a director may decide to "dramatize" reality.
If we were to follow your line of thought we'd have a disclaimer on all movies claiming that "this movie is not only formatted for your TV but also formatted for your perception of reality".
Why offended? Get off the high horse, it may not be a precise rendition of cancer survival but if you want someting more aligned with life choose a documentary next time.
Well said. OP needs to get off the high horse. I haven't read all the replies, but has anyone probed her exact arguement? What, exactly, are the things she lists are offending her? Let's see...
1)Consuela looks like she is
very sick... This is
unlikely. [...]
2)[...] Bull****!! It is
usual procedure to [...]
3)... When
I had my [...]
I was out [...] -- it was just about the
easiest surgery
I ever underwent.
4) [...]That
would take probably a week to find out. The
message this gives to women with a diagnosis of breast cancer is "Sorry, not only are you going to be
horribly deformed (
I opted not to have reconstructive surgery, but that is an option, and
very commonly chosen.), but
you will probably die, and from the mood of this
excruciatingly depressing movie, it will be soon.
Alright. So, in points 1-3, the object of her interest is one and the same: the filmmakers who don't know enough about breast cancer. In these points, she doesn't express fear that the women with breast cancer will get a wrong, harmful information; she is, plain and simple, mad at the filmmakers for their not caring to know enough about breast cancer. How dare they!
Only one out of her four points deals with the concern for the afflicted. From those numbers, it's obvious which of the two is the real object of her interest here: it's the filmmakers' ignorance, and correspondingly, the ignorance of all the people who don't have breast cancer. Together with that anger (grounded or ungrounded?) for not being as important to others as she'd like to be, there's the concern about how their ignorance will translate to their stance toward her: "How will the masses treat us (me) after watching this film? As some... terrible victim. Which we aren't, no way!" The fourth point, the one she wrote last (why not first?!) is there just to mask her real peeve.
There are many uncommendable things here. First, although it's commendable whenever a patient stops having the victim mentality, it's annoying if he becomes irrational in the process. Having a visible part of your body amputated is not a minor thing at all. Especially if that part forms a large part of your sexual beauty and of your gender identity (not to even mention, gender purpose), as breasts in women do. And it's especially a terrible tragedy for young women who are yet to find their mate. Like Consuela. They'd rather go Van Gogh and have their ear removed, then their breast. The specifics of that treatment which OP is nitpicking and which the filmmaker have, supposedly, gotten wrong, is largely irrelevant here; the operation may or may not be much easier in RL than in this film, but what relly matters in RL, and what mattered in this story, is the result of the operation. Make the operation last even only 30 seconds, it makes no difference; the easefulness of the operation makes the result no less dismal. It's ridiculous to lambast a film on the grounds of unimportant details. But, like I said, it's not that OP thinks these "wrong" details will harm anyone; in pointing the details, what she's doing is that she's supposedly demanding a larger amount of public attention for breast cancer (which is unthankful, for breast cancer has a huge amount of public attention, at least in the Western world!). Yet, I doubt OP's honestly doing even that. More than anything else, it looks like that by starting a thread on this, she's just attempting to appoint herself as some kind of a torchbearer of breast cancer patients, for such an enviable position would make her feel less the pain of being a victim (which she adamantly refuses to acknowledge and deal with maturely, and argues that she's not really victim if she decided to not even have a reconstructive surgery). In other words, she's riding a high horse, and she's doing that just to make
herself feel better.
If at least she was apt for the task. But no, her argumentation is so full of holes, as if it belonged to a high school freshman.
In the 1st point she argues the film depiction is wrong because most patients don't look very sick. Yes, but who ever said Consuela represents those most patients? The film is about a specific person. There certainly are some patients who look very sick from breast cancer, and I know that because that was the case with my late teacher (diagnosed in her 30's) and with my late aunt (diagnosed in her 40's). Plus, I, together with some other discussants, don't think Consuela looked all that sick. She just didn't wear much make-up, her black circles around the eyes looked better than mine when I have a hangover, and her hair didn't fall out, but she cut it herself.
The 3rd point she attempts to prove by giving the personal experience. She says "I this", "I that", trying to prove the general by offering the specific. The classical and huge logical fallacy, the hasty geralization.
The 4th point she attempts to prove in the same way: "In the real world, it would probably..." Well, there's the probable, real world reallity, and there's the specific, film reality. She goes on with mistakes, and claims the deformation in this film's reality was portrayed as objectively "horrible". It was not. The film had already put a huge emphasys on the subject of Consuela's physical beauty, and the deformation was portrayed as horrible only from Consuela's subjective point of view. Then, OP goes on to argue that the film suggests Consuela will die soon. It does no such thing; it is perfectly ambiguous on that point. When Consuela utters "I'll miss you", it can mean "When I die before you, I'll miss you in heaven", but can also mean "When you die before me, I'll miss you", and can even mean "When we break up again, I'll miss you". Moreover, OP argues the film suggests Consuela's soon death purely by having an "excruciatingly depressing" mood. That's circular reasoning. The mood is not just depressing, but, supposedly, "excruciatingly depressing" because Consuela is meant to die soon, and because Consuela is meant to die soon, the mood is "excruciatingly depressing". Just great. Never mind that the mood is excruciatingly depressing only in the eye of the beholder. To me, the film is just mildly depressing, and that's because of the theme of growing old. But there are so many things here that put me in a good mood, that I can't even count them.
In short, such a zesty op from such a bland OP. You gotta love that opening:
I didn't like this movie anyway, [...]
no i am db
reply
share