The constant gardener has it easy. It picks an emotionally charged subject matter and involves issues that are at the forefront of the political agenda. It has to be easier to make a film that has an impact on its audience from this starting point. It could have been genuinely awesome.
However i felt that the film was totally one dimensional. For those that haven't seen it (and this will in no way spoil the plot), the central theme is large biotech companies in Africa. It is undeniable that such companies do exploit the poorer nations but it is likewise undeniable that if such companies didn't exist we would not possess the range of drugs that we do today. There is no question that these companies do some good. With such a rich subject matter an exploration of shades of grey of the debate could be the basis for an excellent film. Sadly the film fell firmly on the anti-biotech side without any sort of fair trial. It is the lack of sophistication about the biotech = bad message that i objected to. Then as if the portrayal wasn't one sided enough anyone involved with either the British government or the biotech company was made a thoroughly unlikeable character in terms of personality.
I don't mean to suggest that as a stand alone piece of work the film was bad. The fact is that by choosing a subject matter that is so emotive the filmmaker must take on certain responsibilities. In the case of the constant gardener i thought the complex issues were not explored at all. We've all seen brilliant movies that balance both sides of a debate, exploring both the "hero's" and the "villain's" motivations, and justifying both to us. The constant gardener does not do this, and i believe is a worse movie for it.
However i felt that the film was totally one dimensional. For those that haven't seen it (and this will in no way spoil the plot), the central theme is large biotech companies in Africa. It is undeniable that such companies do exploit the poorer nations but it is likewise undeniable that if such companies didn't exist we would not possess the range of drugs that we do today. There is no question that these companies do some good. With such a rich subject matter an exploration of shades of grey of the debate could be the basis for an excellent film. Sadly the film fell firmly on the anti-biotech side without any sort of fair trial. It is the lack of sophistication about the biotech = bad message that i objected to. Then as if the portrayal wasn't one sided enough anyone involved with either the British government or the biotech company was made a thoroughly unlikeable character in terms of personality.
I don't mean to suggest that as a stand alone piece of work the film was bad. The fact is that by choosing a subject matter that is so emotive the filmmaker must take on certain responsibilities. In the case of the constant gardener i thought the complex issues were not explored at all. We've all seen brilliant movies that balance both sides of a debate, exploring both the "hero's" and the "villain's" motivations, and justifying both to us. The constant gardener does not do this, and i believe is a worse movie for it.