Sunday, September 8, 2024

Fire in the Blood (2013)





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fire in the Blood is a documentary film which premiered in 2013.

 

It is about the battle between the giant pharmaceutical companies and the global public health community over access to low-cost HIV-AIDS drugs to the Third World, in particular Africa.

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Written and directed by Dylan Mohan Gray

** Narrated by William Hurt

** Released on DVD in 2014

** Run time: 83 minutes

 

Several persons are interviewed for the film

Here are their names of the participants

Listed in alphabetical order

 

** Zackie Achmat – a health activist

** Edwin Cameron – justice of the constitutional court, South Africa

** Bill Clinton – former president of the US

** William F. Haddad, an investigative reporter

 

** Yusuf Hamied – chairman of CIPLA

** James Love – a legal activist

** Peter Mugyenyi – a physician (Uganda)

** Donald McNeil, Jr. – a health and science reporter, New York Times

 

** Peter Rost – former executive at Pfizer

** Joseph Stiglitz – an economist, Nobel Prize

Laureate

** Desmond Tutu – an anti-apartheid activist, Nobel Prize Laureate

 

This is the story about how health activists from different countries, who worked together, were able to make sure that Third World patients suffering from HIV or AIDS had access to drugs that could help them survive at a reasonable price.

 

Not 15,000 US dollars for one year, but 350 US dollars for one year, that is less than one dollar per day.

 

One fact is mentioned several times: the giant pharmaceutical companies do not run a charity. They run a business. They are in it for the money.

 

If you have money; if you can pay, you will get help. If you cannot pay; if you have no money, you must suffer; you may even have to die. But the companies will say: this is not our problem!

 

Millions of patients – particularly in the Third World – did in fact suffer and die during the time from 1996 when the drug was available until 2003, 2004 and 2005, when a solution was found and introduced.

 

This film is dedicated to the millions of people who died during those years and to the people who were able to find a solution to the problem.

 

What do reviewers say about this film?

 

Here are some answers:

 

** 68 percent = Meta

** 77 percent = IMDb

** 88 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

** 90 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

 

If you ask me, the rating on Meta is too low, while the rating on Rotten Tomatoes is too high. In my opinion, the rating on IMDb is very appropriate.

 

Why?

 

Because this film is good, but not great. Because this film covers an important topic - a story that deserves to be told - but it has a flaw, which concerns the structure of the film.

 

When covering the story, the director follows a chronological line from 1996, when drugs against HIV-AIDS became available (for a very high price) until 2010, when filming was completed.

 

It is a very long line!

 

Too long!

 

The long story should have been divided into several chapters – 3 or 5 or 7 chapters – and each chapter should open with a title stating the time and the topic, so the viewers know where we are in time and what the topic of the next chapter is.

 

It is a shame this was not done.

 

When we are dealing with books, it is important that the layout is reader-friendly. A long story must be divided into chapters. And each chapter is usually divided into short sections. 

 

This rule is also true for a documentary film. It should have a structure that is viewer-friendly.

 

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but I have to remove one star, because it has a flaw. This film deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).

 

PS. This film has an official website where you can find more information about the topic as well as the cast and the crew.

 

REFERENCE

 

AIDS Drugs for All:

Social Movements and Market Transformations

By Ethan B. Kapstein and Joshua W. Busby

(2013)

 

*****

 

 

Saturday, September 7, 2024

Taken from Me: The Tiffany Rubin Story (2011)

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taken from me: The Tiffany Rubin Story is a historical drama (based on a true story) which was shown on US television (Lifetime Movie Network) in 2011.

 

Here is some basic information about it:

 

** Produced by Harvey Kahn

** Directed by Gary Harvey

** Written by Michael Bortman

** Released on DVD in 2011

** Run time: 87 minutes

 

The cast includes the following:

 

** Taraji P. Henson as Tiffany Rubin – a teacher, mother of Kobe

** Terry O’Quinn as Mark Miller – founder of American Association for Lost Children

** David Haydn-Jones as Chris – Tiffany’s husband

** Beverly Todd as Belzora – Tiffany’s mother

** Sean Baek as Jeff Lee – Tiffany’s ex-boyfriend

** Drew Davis as Kobe – son of Tiffany and Jeff

** Lucia Walters as Sophia – a teacher, one of Tiffany’s colleagues

** Alwin Sanders as Reverend Lewis

** Anthony Shim as Simon – an exchange teacher in South Korea

 

I do not wish to spoil the viewing for anyone. This is why I am not going to say much about what happens in this drama. I will only tell you how the story begins.

 

PART ONE

This drama is about a serious problem:

 

Parental child abduction

 

The story is set in the US and in South Korea. Tiffany and Chris are married and live in New York. Tiffany has a son, Kobe, from a previous relationship with Jeff, who is from South Korea. 

 

Tiffany and Jeff split up shortly after Kobe was born in 2000. Following a court case about custody, Kobe lives with Tiffany, but Jeff can see his son on some weekends.

 

In 2007, when Kobe is seven years old, Jeff tells Tiffany that he wants to take his son on a holiday to Disney World in Florida.

 

Tiffany wants Jeff to have a chance to spend some time with his son, so she agrees to his wish, even though her mother Belzora objects to this plan. She does not trust Jeff, who has never paid any alimony for Kobe.

 

When Tiffany has not heard anything from Jeff or Kobe for several days, she is worried and goes to the police, who find out that Jeff has left the US:

 

He has returned to his home country, South Korea, and he has taken their son with him. Tiffany is devastated. Her mother was right, when she said that she did not trust Jeff.

 

From this moment, Tiffany has only has one thing on her mind: she must find Kobe and get him back home.

 

This is easier said than done. She contacts the FBI and the State Department. 

 

After a while, the State Department confirms that Jeff and Kobe are indeed living in Seoul, the capital of South Korea. But they will not tell her exactly where they are.

 

They refuse to share the information they have with Tiffany, even though she is the mother of the abducted child.

 

They promise to contact the South Korean authorities about the case, but they tell her it can take a long time to process the case, and they cannot promise her a positive result.

 

In desperation, Tiffany contacts a private organisation which is ready to take the case, but they want money: 100,000 or 200,000 dollars for their services.

 

Tiffany and Chris are not poor, but they cannot afford to pay that kind of money.

 

Tiffany’s mother suggests another option: 

 

Through her church she has heard about a man called Mark Miller from the American Association for Lost Children, a Christian charity.

 

When Tiffany goes to see him, he tells her that he does not have any experience with South Korea. But he suggests that she should try to post some information about Kobe on some websites that might be seen in South Korea.

 

In the beginning of 2008, Tiffany receives a call from Simon, an exchange teacher, who works at a school in Seoul in Korea where he has seen Kobe.

 

Now Tiffany has some hard evidence about the case and she wants to go to Korea. When she talks to Mark Miller about the case, he offers to go with her.

 

He also tells her that his organisation is ready to pay for the operation (tickets and hotel rooms).

 

This is how the story begins and this is where my presentation ends.

 

Perhaps you can guess how the story ends. Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic details are part of the public record, and you may know how it ends.

 

What you do not know is how the case develops when Tiffany and Mark arrive in Korea, hoping to find Kobe and hoping to bring him back to the US.

 

PART TWO

What do reviewers say about this drama?

 

Here are some results:

 

62 percent = IMDb

76 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

 

On Amazon there are at the moment more than 1,700 ratings of this product, including more than 200 with reviews.

 

The average rating is 4.7 stars, which corresponds to a rating of 94 percent.

 

I understand the numerous positive reviews. This is, in many ways, a good drama. It is emotional and heart-breaking. In addition, it is based on a true story.

 

How close is the drama to the true story?

 

An on-screen message placed at the end of the drama states:

 

“Although based on a true story, some characters portrayed are fictional and certain events in this motion picture have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”

 

I think I know which elements are true and which elements were added in order to make the movie more dramatic, but I cannot be sure.

 

I am not going to offer any details about them here, because I do not want to spoil the viewing for anyone.

 

But I can say that there are two factual mistakes in this drama. The first one concerns what is shown, the second one concerns what is said.

 

# 1. What is shown

When Tiffany visits the police station in the US, she talks to two police officers, who promise to find out if Jeff has left the country.

 

While she is waiting for them to come back, we can see the room where she is sitting. On the wall, below the staircase, there is a picture of Barack Obama, who was president 2009-2017.

 

But this scene takes place in 2007, while George W. Bush is president. This is an anachronism. They have the wrong US president on the wall.

 

How can they know Obama is going to win the presidential election of 2008?

 

This is, however, only a brief scene. You may not even notice the wrong picture on the wall, unless you know it is there.

 

# 2. What is said

When Tiffany wants to go to Korea to find Kobe and bring him back to the US, her mother tries to talk her out of it. 

 

She warns her:

 

“You could end up like those two journalists they held, till Bill Clinton went there and got them.”

 

Tiffany objects:

 

“Mom! That was North Korea!”

 

But her mother insists:

 

“If you get locked up, Bill Clinton ain’t coming to get you!”

 

This conversation is a reference to a case where two US reporters were arrested in North Korea. When did this happen? They were arrested in March 2009.

 

Former US President Bill Clinton paid a private visit to North Korea five months later, in August 2009, and when he returned to the US, the two reporters were with him.

 

But the scene in the drama takes place in the beginning of 2008, which is one year before the two US reporters were arrested. How could Tiffany and her mother know about this case one year before it happened?

 

This is also an anachronism. The writer Michael Bortman got the facts mixed up. The characters in the drama are talking about an episode that took place in 2009, but the conversation in the movie is set in 2008.

 

The script was probably written in 2010, when the case of the two reporters was still fresh in Bortman’s memory. This is probably why he decided to use it in his script. Unfortunately, he forgot to check the dates.

 

He did not realise that Tiffany’s trip to Korea took place before the US reporters were arrested, and before they were released. Not after they were arrested and after they were released.

 

It does not take long to google the facts, but it seems the writer was lazy. He decided to rely on his memory, which can be dangerous, because your memory of the chronology may be wrong.

 

If you are a screenwriter, you should always be careful and check the facts you want to use in your script.

 

CONCLUSION

As stated above, this is – in many ways – a good drama about a serious problem, but as you can see, there are some flaws here and there.

 

I like this drama, and I want to give it a good rating, but I have to remove one star because of these flaws.

 

In my opinion, the rating on IMDb is too low, while the rating on Amazon is too high.

 

In my opinion, the rating on Rotten Tomatoes is very appropriate. This historical drama deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).

 

PS # 1. In the drama, Tiffany’s ex-boyfriend is called Jeff Lee. As far as I know, his real name is Jeff Salko. His last name has been changed. Perhaps for legal reasons.

 

PS # 2. How was the father Jeff able to travel with his son to South Korea? Obviously, Jeff has a passport. He can travel and he can enter South Korea. But how was he able to travel with his son? 

 

Did he get a passport for the son? How was he able to get a passport for his son without the knowledge of his mother? This question is never discussed in the drama.

 

*****