• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Film
  • DVD
  • Editorial
  • About ScreenFish

ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Interviews
  • News
  • OtherFish
  • Podcast
  • Give

arthritis

Maudie – Validation of a Life

?The whole of life, already framed, right there.?

It?s hard to assign Maudie to any one genre. Certainly it qualifies as biography. But it is also a bit of art history. It?s an inspirational story of finding success and happiness against terrible odds. And at its heart it is a love story?but not the kind of love story that usually is made into movies.

This is the story of Canadian primitivist artist Maud Dowley Lewis (Sally Hawkins). Suffering from severe arthritis since childhood, she is cared for by her overprotective and judgmental aunt. When mercurial fish peddler Everett Lewis (Ethan Hawke) seeks to hire a woman to clean his house and cook his meals, Maud sees it as a chance to escape. Everett lives an almost hermit-like existence. He had learned to be self-reliant to a fault. He lives in a 10?x12? house without water or electricity. When Maude moves in to such close quarters, it is hard for both of them to adjust. Everett is demanding and at times violent. He is taciturn, while Maud is opinionated and talkative. ?Early on he treats her as a lower life form (even the chickens outrank her), but she soon finds an important place in his life.

As an outlet, Maud begins painting pictures of birds and flowers on the walls?and soon the door and the windows. She paints on scraps of wood and paper. A woman from New York wants to buy some pictures, and soon Maud has a roadside business. While this enhances their finances, in many ways it rubs Everett the wrong way. It is a constant struggle to balance these two very independent souls whose lives have become intertwined and who find a love that many may find a bit cold, but there is a passion there.

The film?s greatest strength is the pair of performances by the lead actors. Even when there is little dialogue, their screen presence carries us through the story and the moods that are such a part of the film.

The film often makes use of windows?looking in or out through windows, conversations through windows, windows that might be so dirty we can barely see. For Maud, her art was the window through which she viewed the world. Her paintings are vibrant and happy?far happier than we might expect from someone who suffered so much both physically and emotionally. It is through the window of her art that Maud found happiness and validation.

The concept of validation is a key. How frequently we use the word invalid for someone with a physical or emotional problem. And how close we may come to thinking of such a person as not valid because of their affliction. That is certainly how Maud?s family treated her. She was deemed unimportant and a burden. Early in her relationship with Everett, he thought her incapable of doing what needed to be done. Yet when others began to see beauty in the pictures that she created, it was obvious that she mattered. It was not just that she was earning money. It was that she did something that brought joy to herself and others.

Maudie reminds us of the intrinsic value each person has. To treat them otherwise means we could well miss the gifts they offer to us.

Photos courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

 

The God Cells: Good For What Ails You?

godcells2The God Cells raises some interesting questions?some by what is said, some by what is not said. The combination of those questions leaves me very torn as to how to approach this documentary. On the one hand, it shares information for a medical treatment that could provide great benefit to people suffering many terrible illnesses. On the other hand, I can?t say it is not an infomercial for snake oil.

The film is a very one-sided look at the medical use of fetal stem cells. (Fetal stem cells are harvested from aborted fetuses, usually at about eight to ten weeks. Obviously their use?even if effective?is very controversial. They differ somewhat from adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells (neither of which is controversial), and embryonic stem cells (also controversial because they are harvested from embryos a few days old). The film offers some rudimentary explanation of stem cell treatments and the various short-comings for the other types of stem cells. But most of the film is testimonials by patients who have gone to Mexico for these treatments.

Those testimonials are truly impressive. The term ?miracle? does not seem out of place. Among the diseases treated are cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, lymphatic leukemia, lupus, Parkinson?s, and rheumatoid arthritis. (There are other diseases alluded to but these are the main ones we hear about firsthand.) The patients we meet who have had this treatment tell amazing stories of not just stopping the progression of their diseases, but of major improvement?to the point of leading normal and active lives. It should be noted that these patients are all the clients of a single doctor (who the film notes, with a bit of spin applied, has lost his license.)

So the first question raised is why is this treatment not readily available? There is some information on the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine as one of the few places doing research on this kind of stem cells. It also points out the many hoops stem cell treatments face with the FDA before they can be approved. However, there is also a cynical streak to the film that points out that because fetal stem cells wouldn?t be patentable, they represent a cure that would not be profitable for drug companies. I?m not above being cynical about Big Pharma, but I also think there are more issues involved than just that.

One of the biggest questions I had in watching the film is where are all the patients who don?t have miraculous stories to tell? How many people has this doctor treated and what percentage of them have benefited? Are there some who got worse?

The film also does not touch on any of the moral and ethical questions involved in such treatment. There are reasons, some religious, that fetal stem cells are controversial. It could well be argued that the benefits must be considered, but so too should the qualms that many people would have about the practice. And what of the ethics of going across the border to Tijuana to provide a treatment not allowed here, and at a cost of $30,000 (not covered by any insurance) that is only available to those with some means?

It may well be that this is a treatment that deserves to be better understood. The stories we hear are very persuasive. If I were as ill as some of those in the film, I might be hopeless enough to seek out this treatment. But this is still a situation that seems to be very open to the abuse of sick, desperate people. If the film encourages people to seek more inquiry into the treatment by the scientific community, it will be a good thing. If it merely sends people seeking their own miracle to pay their money for their chance (with unknown odds) at a better life, then there are too many questions outstanding.

Primary Sidebar

THE SF NEWS

Get a special look, just for you.

Hot Off the Press

  • John Wick: Chapter 4 – Pageantry and Pistols
  • The Wrong Ones – Grit and struggle
  • GIVEAWAY! Advance Passes to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES!
  • SF Radio 9.16: Rewarding the OSCARS
  • Boston Strangler: Solving Mysteries & Re-Writing History
Find tickets and showtimes on Fandango.

where faith and film are intertwined

film and television carry stories which remind us of the stories God has woven since the beginning of time. come with us on a journey to see where faith and film are intertwined.

Footer

ScreenFish Articles

John Wick: Chapter 4 – Pageantry and Pistols

The Wrong Ones – Grit and struggle

  • About ScreenFish
  • Privacy Policy

 

Loading Comments...