MovieChat Forums > Still Alice (2015) Discussion > Did them being rich help or hinder this ...

Did them being rich help or hinder this story?


Movies are about struggle and conflict, and them having lots of money, nice beach houses, expensive tastes etc made it sorta less engaging. Don't get me wrong, I liked their lifestyle, but storytelling is about people who are in conflict with their world.

Their money made things a lot more "comfortable". Cellphones to leave reminders. Expensive doctors. Maids. Imacs to leave death messages/communicate with child.

I felt like I wanted some subplot about the money... maybe he's about to go bust and needs her to keep working. Maybe they want the daughter to give up on acting and help out, like the others are secretly doing (perhaps).

It could have been used as a device to talk about the fact that even "rich people" live paycheck to paycheck and being destitute is often only an illness away.

reply

But their having money didn't mean that they didn't struggle. If anything, I thought it made the point that this disease doesn't discriminate. Alice and her husband were obviously very well off but that couldn't save Alice or even delay the progression of her disease.

I did think the money was touched on very briefly, in that her husband said that he couldn't afford to take a year off of work, especially now when they would need the money more than ever.

But that was just my take! Obviously, the finances of dealing with a chronic illness are a very real problem for most people in that situation so your point is definitely valid.

reply

I think him mentioning not wanting to take a year off was him pushing her away. He couldn't handle seeing her like that 24/7, which is common for those who have partners with dementia.

But the point that it can get anyone, even rich intellectual types showed that it doesn't discriminate, I agree.

reply

I always thought "For better or worse" meant you stayed with them through thick and thin, insanity or not.
Yet I see divorce due to mental illness or Alzheimer's quite a commonly accepted thing.
Not even looked up on as unethical.


"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin

reply

[deleted]

Sad but true. Also, we don't know what their marriage vows were, but even if they were traditional, we need to give people the room to change their minds, especially if we want people to give us the same.

reply

I agree. People these days treat marriage like it's just an extended date. When things get tough or unpleasant, they sign a few papers, and it's over. Marriage isn't about "living the only life you're given," as is stated in another post. It's about choosing someone (carefully) and honoring the vows taken, even when it's not fun. Sometimes it's just about holding on tight, putting your heads down, and working through the hard part to come out on the other end knowing you did the very best you could. It's so worth it.
I understand that in this case, this couple are not going to end up toasting each other in a candle-lit restaurant, but at least he'd be able to look himself in the mirror every morning knowing that he did the best he could for his wife...the mother of his children.

reply

Pardon me. I was replying to alicebr...I'm posting from my cell phone, and sometimes hit the wrong Reply arrow.

reply

Doesn't discriminate? Oh really? I thought having money made me immune to everything.

reply

So it's less sad if a rich person gets a horrible disease just because they're rich? You're despicable.

reply

I'm talking about the dynamics of storytelling. Duh.

reply

I still don't see what that has to with anything.

reply

A lot. If I'm rich an struck with this horrible disease, I have all the options in the world to choose from to find the 'cure', which we know right now isn't there. If you're poor or middle-class your options are much more limited. If I got this, I might handle it easier knowing I can't afford the things others could to perhaps overcome this barbaric insult.
But the rich have no such comfort, knowing there's no answer there.

"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin

reply

You say rich people have "all the options to choose from to find the cure". What? If you're rich you have a better chance of finding the cure? What? What does that even mean! If there's no cure there's no cure, regardless of your social class!

Can you rephrase your entire answer? I'm actually having trouble understanding you, but I want to know what you're trying to say.

reply

I think the idea of showing this happening to rich people is twofold:

1) to illustrate that this is a disease that no amount of money will cure.

2) to allow the film to focus on the struggle with the disease itself, instead of ancilary issues dealing with lack of money and resources.



 The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news. 

reply

No, I agree. But the other poster seemed to be questioning the morality of them being rich.

reply

I think the idea of showing this happening to rich people is twofold:

1) to illustrate that this is a disease that no amount of money will cure.

2) to allow the film to focus on the struggle with the disease itself, instead of ancilary issues dealing with lack of money and resources.


Hmmm.. I partially disagree. it followed the book in that they were well off, but why did the author write it that way? I don't know why she wrote about it that way, but in real life, the struggle with the disease, any disease, the lack of money and resources is a huge part of the struggle for most families, and might have made the story more relatable to the masses if it were written with that in mind. Just my opinion.

reply

It would have made it more compelling if money was an issue as the audience was to an extent mislead into believing that they had it good. I felt that I couldn't totally feel for her because she had the life of luxury to help get her through.

If she was a single woman and this happened and she lost her job she could end up in a woman's shelter. That would be a story too depressing to tell but it gives you an idea of how money could have been used as a dynamic.

reply

you couldn't feel for her because she has money?

It's for the audience to focus on the disease, people with no money struggle regardless of the disease. That would take us out of the issue. We aren't to supposed to think "how are they going to pay the bills?", we're supposed to reflect on the disease. Focusing on money issues would take a lot of the struggle with the disease to had other struggles.

reply

but a disease generally does impact on many exterior issues such as income. People sell their homes to pay for cancer treatments all the time. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

reply

yes but that would take us away from the disease symptoms and how they affect the victim and their family to thinking about how they don't have money too treat it, or to pay the house. I'm not saying that there cannot be a movie with that premise, it might be interesting, but i find the the focus on the disease is what makes this movie good.

reply

I agree -- they had to focus the audience on the disease. If money had been a secondary focus, the audience may have been thinking that if only the family had more money, something could have been done to help her and possibly cure her, and that it's even a more painful situation BECAUSE of the lack of money. Well, not true. It's just as emotionally painful for the person affected and their family members regardless of money they have -- this emotional aspect was the point of the movie in my opinion. That's why the money aspect was minimized here.

reply

I felt that I couldn't totally feel for her because she had the life of luxury to help get her through.


What a disgusting thing to say.

Why is bigotry against the affluent so socially acceptable?

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?


-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

reply

Next time you have an illness, use your money to come to Brasil and get full treatment in a public hospital.

You must learn how it is.

reply

Yes it is.

They had lots of great years and lived to their best. They can't complain if they suffer (or whatever, struggle) for a few years.

There are people that suffer AND struggle their whole lives. And they don't need illness to help on that. If they have any basic illness, they just go to public hospital and die.

reply

I'm almost certain they were written as being rich because it would have been far too depressing to watch a poor person go through the illness.

reply

Hollywood class porn lol You hit the nail on the head.
Noone's going to watch a poor woman in a *beep* house with crappy life go through this illness. They can do however it if she's walking with her daughter by the beach of their vacation home. That's more tasteful.

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

reply

Nice post. I agree 100%, except you probably articulated better than I could.

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

reply

I honestly didn't think their financial status hindered the story too much. At the end of the day, it was about a woman slowly losing who she is and struggling to hold on to whatever she had left. She was obviously a very driven and intelligent woman, and her husband was equally so, so it makes sense that they would be financially comfortable.

That being said, I do think money was an issue at least near the middle of the movie. They relied and planned on two incomes (Alice's and her husband's), and suddenly lost one. The husband was offered a great, high paying job in another state that would have made it easier to financially care for Alice, but relocating her would have put her health in jeopardy. They still would have been better off than most people even if they only had to downgrade their home and lifestyle a little bit, that is true, but at that point they were trying to keep things as normal as possible for her and not make any huge changes that would disrupt her patterns. I do think a little bit of it was the husband not wanting to watch her wasting away, but watching the film definitely showed that he cared deeply for her and probably just focused on the money/work aspect so he could deal with it better emotionally.

reply

They were well off in the book.

I would think most professors at Columbia would be well off.

reply

I suppose having more money can get them the best treatment available

reply

I think that the family being rich worked for a few reasons:

1. Alice and her husband were both professors at Columbia. Professor jobs are very high-paying at the majority of universities as it is, and they would likely be getting pretty large salaries at one of the most well-regarded universities in the country

2. As an esteemed professor, Alice was incredibly smart and resourceful and that played a huge role in the story. We needed her to be that educated because it added to the shock of the situation. She's been so intelligent her whole life but, with Alzheimer's, a lot of her mental capacities have been taken away from her. We get to see the contrast of her at the beginning, teaching linguistics and coming up with games and strategies to keep her mind sharp, to her at the end, not even being able to fully pronounce the word love.

3. Making them well-off also focused the story. One thing I really liked about this movie was that it was simply about a woman's struggle with the disease and her family's attempts to cope with this tragedy. Since they are wealthy, it wasn't necessary to add any additional or forced conflicts like her husband leaving/divorcing her because he can't handle the financial strain of caring for an alzheimer's patient or her spending her years in a government facility where she is primarily taken care of by strangers. This film, although perhaps not realistic for most lower or middle-class families, felt especially emotional because you get to see the reactions of her and her family as her condition deteriorates. They never expected this to happen, and they aren't the perfect caregivers, but they are just trying to make the best of the situation.

4. While Alice is rich, I think we can still sympathize with her plight because her life really wasn't all easy. Her mother and sister died when she was a lot younger and her father died of liver disease, when she was in her 30s, as a result of his alcoholism (I would guess this was caused by the deaths of his wife and daughter but I'm just making an inference). Really, if anything, having her lose her mind and the achievements she worked so hard for make you sympathize with her even more. The impression I got is that she had to work hard for the riches she has and now her source of income and her knowledge of linguistics, a subject she was so passionate about, are gone.

That's just one person's opinion though and I can see your side as well.

reply

I think point 2 is the key. Part of the story was that she was an academic, studied linguistics etc. which made is so sad when she started forgetting words and similar. Another part of this was all the tricks she was doing to prevent her memory loss and how this related to her overall personality/job. And other, similar, themes, such as her taking time off to raise children and her husband not so, the desire for the daughter to go to college etc.

They weren't written as rich so much to be rich but I think because it was important that the characters were professors and with that comes a certain level of salary (and btw, I'm not sure if rich is even the right term, they were well off but it wasn't an endless supply of money, as the husband made clear when he made reference to needing the higher-paying job for her care since they lost her income)

reply