Topic: The "Analysis" game.

[Touti]

I put it here because it's not really a game.  I used to have these "Movie talk over dinner" with friends when I was a student.  We would pick a movie, get together for dinner and talk about, trying to analyse the characters, why they did this or that, the directing and acting, why did the director do that, does it mean this or did it mean that ?  Almost everytimg it would lead to very nice conversation about society and human psychology. 

I remembered that after reading the very interesting comments in the "Survival Game" thread.

I'd like to see if we can do that on a forum.  We could all submit a short list of movies, then choose one all together and fire the discussion.

What do you think ?

[SailorRipley]

Cool idea! I'm all for it.

Would the list have to be on a particular topic, genre, director, actor?

[Kathy]

I'm finishing up my masters (finally) since I can't work but I'm bored; I'm used to being much more active! So count me in - forums are a welcome reprieve from research!

[Touti]

Cool idea! I'm all for it.

Would the list have to be on a particular topic, genre, director, actor?

Nope !  Any movies you feel could be the base for an interesting discussion.  For instance, I watched
"36 Quai des Orfèvres" last week and there's something important in the film that one of the character does which doesn't really make sense.  I've been wondering for a week now why would he do that, that's the sort of things we woud discuss.

On Schindler's List we probably would have talked about the fact that contrary to what we sometime like to think, not all german were Nazis and most of them were actually not aware of what was happening.  Many were horrifed when they found out during the Nuremberg trials.  That's a great subject from a social POV, how does one deal with that ?

Once we watched a movie on TV called "Whose Life is it Anyway", with Richard Dreyfuss.  That was one the longest and most interesting discussion we had, it lasted all through dinner and for many many hours after that.

Anyway, I think you all get the point now.  There doesn't have to be a theme, the idea of submitting a list is only to build a pool of movies so we can more easily find one that we've all seen and would care to discuss.  It's like a book discussion club except that it's movies and we meet on internet instead of changing house every week

[Kathy]

Once we watched a movie on TV called "Whose Life is it Anyway", with Richard Dreyfuss.  That was one the longest and most interesting discussion we had, it lasted all through dinner and for many many hours after that.

I am officially a critical care nurse, but I think of myself as a patient care advocate. I wish I could go back in time to listen in on the discussions about "Whose Life is it Anyway". How long ago was this? The health care industry has changed so much since I first started in nursing. Would the discussions be any different today? I enjoyed the movie therefore because it is particularly relevant to me in my profession.

[Touti]

That is quite interesting Kathy because I think today, 20 years later (Movie was produced in 1981) many would have a different view but the legal side of things would be the exact same.  It his had been a real case 26 years ago, I'm almost sure that no judge would have granted the man's request to interrupt his dialisis.  A similar case today would probably end up the exact same way but now, most of the public, would be on his side whereas 20 years ago most believed that life should be preserved at any cost.

For those who don't know of that movie, it's about a sculpting artist who get paralysed from the neck down after a big car accident.  When he wakes up at the hospital he feels that living like this is a torture because without his hands he can no longer be what he is.....an artist.  So when he finds that dialisis keeps him alive, he requests that they stop it an allow him to die but obviously the doctors can't do that so he goes to court.

It raises an interesting some interesting questions.  What makes a person, is it being alive or is it being what you are by your own nature.  If you can no longer be what you've always thought you were, should you be allowed to end your life ?  Does the society has the right to force someone to live when they don't want to ?  Can we morally condemn someone to live ?

[Kathy]

I think I'll put on a pot of coffee, pull up a chair, and listen in. I 've been on the computer doing research all day, I need the coffee so I won't  I've wanted to use that smiley for a while!

[Najemikon]

I think this is a cracking idea, Touti. Might be worthy of a separate forum, so threads can be strictly limited to discussing a single film.

We were talking about Spielberg earlier and I always like discussing the ending of AI. It comes in for a lot of flak, but I believe it is very misunderstood. Also, I watched The Prestige the other night. There's one to have a good natter about! I think I get it, but I'm not sure ... 

[Touti]

It seemed logical to start this in the "Movie" section but I agree that it probably deserves its own forum.  The current "Movie" forum can stay and we'll use it to discuss more general things about movies.

[SailorRipley]

Well, I can't say I remember much of this movie, since I watched it a long time ago. However, something struck me about that last shot of the prosthetic hand.

Inherently this film raises very important issues. Personally, I don't think anyone has the right nor privilege to decide whatever it is that they think it's right for another human being. The ever present moral question of, should you be allowed to end your own life? For me, this is really a no-brainer, the answer must be, strongly, a yes. Choice, is the only thing we genuinely have as humans. We make choices every day, good/bad, who knows, but it is our own free will. And if in that process we make the choice of truly stop breathing, fully aware that there is no turning back, we must have the right to continue.

There is another recent film example on the same subject that if you haven't seen, you really should. It's a Spanish film called The Sea Inside, about Ramón Sampedro, paralyzed in a diving accident and who fought for 30 years to have the right for an assisted suicide. It's a very moving film, beautifully done and it raises the exact same issues as Whose Life Is It Anyway. Highly recommended.

[Touti]

When reading this you will recall the the hand at this end was not a prothesis .  The man gave his doctor, the good loking woman, permission to take something she liked in his shop.  She came back to the hospital with the sculpted hand saying how good of a sculptor he was and he started laughing and told her it wasn't from him but from Michael Angelo.

I do agree that showing this at the end was punchy though.  That's a good movie and I just found it was release on DVD very recently, I will order it soon, probably with "The sea inside".

Back to one of the subjects in this thread.  There is actually a big difference for me between assisted suicide and allowing someone to die, although I'm in favor of both.  I understand that assisted suicide can be difficult to accept for some people but letting someone die by stopping treatments if that's what they want shouldn't be so hard to accept by the society.

When someone is artificially kept alive, family can decide to unplug them and let them die.  If someone needs 4 hours or dialisis 3 times a week to survive, IMO opinion he/she is also artificially kept alive and the same logic should apply.  If that person doesn't want to live like that he/she should be allowed to end it gracefully.  People who have no hope of getting better shouldn't be forced to live a life they don't want because healthy people struggle with their conscience and morality.

[Kathy]

The issue is certainly complex. I'm not sure about other countries but in the US we have something called a "Health Care Proxy". This is a legal form that spells out exactly what a person does or does not want relative to their health care. It is a contract that every hospital is required to supply at no charge. I am proactive in providing this form to every person I encounter in the care of the hospitalized patient. I include people, other than patient, because I want evey person to think about the topic BEFORE they become hospitalized. Pain, diability, and death are difficult enough to discuss with the healthy, much worse when compromised. Every person should think, ask questions, and discuss their thoughts and feelings. I explain that I want to take care of you the way you want to be taken care of. The proxy helps me do that. Do YOU want feeding tubes? Ventilator? Dialysis? Blood transfusions? If yes - how long? If no, and you come in unconscious, how will I know that? Who speaks for you if you are incapacitated? I am morally, ethically, and legally obligated to do anything and everything unless I know otherwise.

Quoting Touti: "There is actually a big difference for me between assisted suicide and allowing someone to die, although I'm in favor of both.  I understand that assisted suicide can be difficult to accept for some people but letting someone die by stopping treatments if that's what they don't want shouldn't be so hard to accept by the society."

The difference is so vast that it can not be measured. Assisted suicide is unexceptable - ever. A competent person has the right to refuse or discontinue any and all treatment relative to their care. Please note I said "competent"; pain, depression, trauma, unconsciousness, etc. can make competency moot. That is why everyone should have a proxy - fill it out - give to family, friends, physician, hospitals etc. Keep a copy next to your driver’s license. This allows your wishes to be known and followed - whatever they are. Everyone's wishes are different, what are yours? Do you have a health care proxy?

Sorry for the long post. But...I could have gone on and on and on...

[Touti]

Kathy,

When I refer to assisted suicide I'm not talking about helping people kill themselves because they lost their jobs or their girl friend dumped them.  I'm not saying we should help anyone to commit suicide.  I'm referring to incapacitated (I had to look your post up to spell this one ) people who have a disease with no hope of ever getting better while slowly getting worse and unable to end their life because they can't move.  They do not require any treatment or any machine to stay alive but their quality of life is at 0%, all they can do is endure pain and wait for their death while somebody gives them a bath once every 2 weeks.  I think those people should have the right to end their life if they want to and since they can't do it themselve it should be legal for doctors to help them.

As long as they are mentally sane enough to make that decision.

[Kathy]

I must not have explained it very well, I am not a great writer. The people you are discussing, if they have already have their wishes known, will not have to reach that point.
Proxy example:              Ventilator - short term only - discontinue after one month
                                  Pain control - is a priority - pain is to be controlled even if it hastens my death
                                  Artificial nutrition - short term only - discontinue after one month
                                  Hydration - short term only - discontinue after three months
                                  Exception to above: Stroke - nutrition and hydration are to be discontinued after three months. No other exceptions are to be made.
                                  Other specific instructions - .........

A person with these instuctions would ensure that the scenario would not occur. Death will occur without food or water. It does NOT have to be painful. Quality of life can be preserved.

But...if someone wants everything done - that too is their right. Quantity of life can also be preserved.

The most important thing is that a person thinks of every possible situation that can occur and discuss that with those that will be affected if "the worse case scenerio" occurs. Don't assume that others know what you want, in my experience that very seldom occurs.