Home
sign up| features / film interview |
 content by: editor |
 the constant gardener interviews
 to access audio and video on collective you need real player.Gardener’s question time. What sounds like an Alan Titchmarsh biopic instead turns out to be one of the year’s most vibrant and gripping thrillers, as well as one of its most touching love stories. The Constant Gardener, based on the John Le Carré novel, is a scathing attack on the combined machinations of government and “Big Pharma”, the pharmaceutical industry which often plays fast and loose with the lives of the Third World populations most in need of their product. Set in Kenya, the film follows self-effacing diplomat Justin Quail’s (Ralph Fiennes) quest to uncover just who and why his fiery young activist wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz) was killed. It’s a world that could easily have been secreted away among stuffy Whitehall corridors of power, but thanks to the kinetic filmmaking and background of Brazilian director Fernando “City Of God” Meirelles, the film attempts a much richer, headier ethnic mix. “The story was written by a middle-class guy with British middle-class characters,” attests Meirelles. “So they needed a point of view from outside the UK, to see the film from a different perspective. As a person from the Third World, I identified more with the Kenyans than with the British.” Having explored the favelas of Rio in his previous acclaimed film, Meirelles was shocked at the level of poverty they discovered in Kenya. “We say Third World developing countries are all the same but they’re not,” he says. “In the Rio favelas it’s very poor, but they have the minimum – electricity, running water, some sanitation. Here we shot in this big slum, Kibera, with no sanitation at all, and a lot of disease. People have to walk two miles to buy water, but at the same time there’s such a spirit, everybody receives you in such a warm way.”  Events like Live 8 have been accused of causing a moment’s indignation, but perhaps less lasting change. Meirelles, though, remains adamant that his film is no placebo to exploitative drug companies. “I think a film can bring awareness and that’s what really changes,” he nods. “Especially when you’re dealing with corporations and public opinion. They invest a lot in PR, so they really need to look good. So if everyone starts talking about things, that’s when they start to do something.” If Meirelles, Fiennes and co have their way, The Constant Gardener will plant a seed that takes root and makes a lasting impact far from Western multiplexes.
Leigh Singer
The Constant Gardener, on national release 11 November 05.
 comments
Read members' comments related to this film.
comment by AlbanGlass
Nov 12, 2005
I've just seen The Constant Gardener at Dalston Rio, surprisingly only 1/4 full for its first night. I was reluctant to accompany my mum who enjoyed the book because of the fairly damning reviews I'd seen and read. By the end, I was pleasantly surprised and hoped many people would see it.There's been repeated criticism that the female lead is a dull, precitable, unbelievable saint. While she certainly has a good heart, I found her a credible and entertaining human who used morally questionable means for her intended ends. The general narrative flow is adequate though unremarkable. I did find something disconcerting about the romance, especially some mawkish scenes where Fiennes is fantasising his dead ex. The director has said he wanted to build up the African perspective of Le Carre's story and I found this the movie's greatest strength. No tv clips for charity can evoke the atmosphere of a Kenyan shanty town, the people, their dress, their winning smiles. After numerous scenes in this vast collection of corrugated iron roofed slum dwellings, there is a masterful pan shot that ends here after starting just across railway lines on a golf course where Pharma execs and friends are playing - a simple but very impressive exression of the gulf dividing cultures. I had not expected an other effective dramatisation of an African situation, with the terror of a raid (I presume by Janjawed) on a community in southern Sudan. The scenes provide a very believable impression of what goes on during such cruel attacks (sadly ongoing, as the Sudaense government and international community fail to intervene). I only wish the central theme of big Pharma immorality was dealt with the same sensibility. Unfortanately, the whole premise lacked any credibility and I'm amazed it survived the scrutiny of the accomplished minds involved in the film. The idea that a drug company would manipulate the trial of a new 'wonder drug' to cover up fatal side-effects in some of those who take it is nonsensical. Its status as a wonder drug wouldn't last long however much money was put into marketing and PR. I found this a significant fault. Making silly accusations does damage to the vital campaign to fight and expose many Pharma practices, especially their less glamorous but more deadly pricing and distribution policies. I remain hopeful that the movie will increase public interest in Pharma. I am more confident of its power to raise awareness of the plight of too many Africans ordinary life.
|
 |
related info
 useful links
note: The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
books  books and comics archive Author interviews and reviews from 2002 to 2008. |
send to a friend
lff 05
access 1000s of articles
