Dark Waters

Rated: MDark Waters

Directed by: Todd Havnes

Written by: Mario Correa and Matthew Michael Carnahan

Based on The New York Times Magazine article, “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare,” by Nathaniel Rich

Produced by: Mark Ruffalo, Pamela Koffler, Christine Vachon

Starring: Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, Tim Robbins, Bill Camp, Victor Garber, Mare Winningham, William Jackson Harper, Bill Pullman.

Better living through chemistry – that’s the catch phrase from big chem company, DuPont.

For decades the company has been sticking Teflon onto everything: carpet, teeth whitener; it’s the stuff that makes fry pans, non-stick.  The stuff is everywhere, making DuPont one billion a year in pure profit.

When Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo) makes partner at a prestigious Cincinnati law firm, it’s everything he and his wife Sarah (Anne Hathaway) have worked for.

Until a couple of farmers from West Virginia turn up at the office with a box full of video tapes of dead or dying cows.

Rob’s grandmother who lives in the area gave the farmers his name because he’s an environmental attorney.  A corporate environmental defence attorney for the chemical companies.

But what Rob sees when he visits his grandmother is enough to sue DuPont, resulting in a case spanning two decades, a case he continues to fight today.

It’s a classic David and Goliath tale of the small people being knowingly poisoned by the big chem company for profit.

Even with compassion fatigue (after seeing so many of these films and after watching what’s on the news), I was still stunned by the evil of a company that would knowingly lace cigarettes of employees with a toxic, man-made chemical to see what would happen.

It’s a stark tale based on the true story and The New York Times Magazine article, “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare,” by Nathaniel Rich.

Adding to the bleak story is the way the film was shot, in the middle of a bitterly cold winter of snow, flat colourless buildings in a small community filled with sick residents.

Stark and Anne Hathaway cast in a wholly unsuitable role – I just couldn’t believe her performance as the housewife: it’s depressing.

Yet, it’s a movie that starts to answer the question of why so many people seem to be getting cancer these days.

Not that every cancer is accountable to the dreaded man-made PFOA compound.  But this is a story of just one of the ‘forever chemicals’ floating around.  That once in the body can never be processed and eliminated.

It’s not the family or the expose that gives this film momentum – the story here is the truth of the story itself.  And it’s bleak.

 

 

The Children Act

Rated: MThe Children Act

Directed by: Richard Eyre

Produced by: Duncan Kenworthy

Screenplay based on his Novel by: Ian McEwan

Starring: Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci, Fionn Whitehead, Ben Chaplin, Jason Watkins, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Anthony Calf, Rosie Cavaliero, Eileen Walsh, Nicholas Jones and Rupert Vansittart.

The Children Act is based on the novel written by Ian Ewan – he also writes the screenplay stating he started writing after spending time with ‘a handful of judges’ who were ‘Talking shop’.

A Sir Alan Ward (an appeal court judge) left the table to consult a bound volume of his own judgments to settle a disagreement.  Ian found himself with the book, reading the judgments and finding the cases written like short stories; those involved captured in broad strokes; the dilemma written with sympathy for the ones who inevitably lose.

Several years later, The Children Act was written.

The film opens with the sound of a gentle heartbeat, blood reaching through arteries like the branches of trees the film revolving around a case where a seventeen-year-old Jehovah Witness’ boy, Adam (Fionn Whitehead) who has leukemia, refuses a blood transfusion because of his faith.

To the Jehovah Witness, the soul, like life itself, lives in the blood, therefore, it belongs to God.  To allow another person’s blood or soul enter his veins would be blasphemous.

The hospital moves to force the transfusion under the instruction of The Children Act, 1989:

“When a court determines any question with respect to … the upbringing of a child … the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

The case lands on the desk of eminent High Court judge Fiona Maye (Emma Thompson), who now childless and struggling in the relationship with her husband Jack (Stanley Tucci) because of her commitment to her career, finds her emotions breaking through her usual cold rational as she decides the fate of Adam’s life – to allow him to die for his faith, or force him to live at the cost of his beliefs.

She decides to hear from Adam himself, to see that he understands the painful death that awaits at the refusal of the transfusion.

A highly unusual circumstance, she sits by his hospital bed and ends up singing with him as he plays his guitar.

This is a practical, concise and highly intelligent woman who has sworn not to allow her emotion to enter her decision-making process – all very believable from the performance of Emma Thompson.  Her place is to make decisions based on law not morals.

All the while imagining her husband having an affair, writing a text, ‘Having fun?’ Then having to delete when work and making life-and-death decisions for other people and their families once again become the priority.

When Adam survives, when his life is more important than his dignity, he chases the only one who understands: the woman who decided to save his life.

This is a film about the characters who are making serious decisions all day, every day.  Emma Thompson shows clarity of mind when making a judgment in court balanced against the confusion and overflow of hurt when her husband explains his unhappiness in their marriage: ‘Do you remember the last time we made love?’ he asks.

‘No idea!’ she states while pouring over the arguments for and against the separation of conjoined twins.

Then we see this fascinating case of Adam playout in court, from the medical side to the point of view of his parents, to the clear mind of a judge entangled in emotion from her personal life, to still be able to make concise decisions; the consequences of her decision shown in this strange and precocious boy who lives.  Who wants to know more about the life he feels he owes to her.

The film asks the question – if you save a life, are you responsible for that life?

Not in the court of law.

The Children Act is a quietly emotive film that gives a deeper understanding of those stories we’ve all read in the papers.

It’s a thought-provoking film about how the court has more power over life than religion.  And the cost it takes from those who make the judgment and the ones who have to live with a decision not their own.

Subscribe to GoMovieReviews
Enter your email address for notification of new reviews - it's free!

 

Subscribe!