3 agujas

Released in Singapore to coincide with World Aids Day (1 Dec), it actually took me this long to cast my eyes on the movie, no thanks to weird and limited screenings at one or two theatres. Perhaps it's because of the subject matter, about that disease which, as far as I can recall, doesn't get named at all in the movie, which probably won't sit down well with audiences who are up for the latest feel good movies in town this holiday season.

Written and directed by Thom Fitzgerald, 3 Needles comprises of 3 distinct stories set in 3 distinct continents - Asia, North America and Africa, but looks into a common killer disease that is plaguing our world today. It takes a look at common fears of those who have the disease, and those from high risk groups who fear of getting the disease, as well as the bad practices and schemes as perpetrated by the greed of men, eager to sacrifice all to make a quick buck.

The story arcs, in my opinion, were not weaved together to form one long narrative. Rather, it looked as if 3 short stories were glued together at the seams to make up the runtime sufficient to call itself a feature film. The first had an illegal blood trafficker, Jin Ping (Lucy Liu), milking all that its worth in a small Chinese village, and for US$5 per packet of blood, managed to entice villagers to undergo unlicensed blood donation drives for a few dollars. Next, we have a porn star Denys (Shawn Ashmore, Iceman in X-Men2 and 3) who, while aware he has the disease, covers up this knowledge through tampering with the provision of blood samples, fearing otherwise he would lose his job in the adult entertainment industry. And lastly, a group of nuns (Chloe Sevigny, Olympia Dukakis, Sandra Oh) journey to a South African village to assist in the care of the villages, only to have Sister Clara (Sevigny) deciding whether it's worth compromising her beliefs, in order to help those she cares for.

When watching these stories, you'll feel a sense of injustice as the characters do what is obviously morally incorrect. You feel angry at the way blood is trafficked without regard to safety and basic hygiene, you feel disgusted at how selfishness clouds the mind into deceit, and the better to go with others rather than oneself, and you feel sorry for the way sacrifices have to be made, while wishing eternal damnation to those who choose to exploit situations for their own gratification. As a movie, if its objectives is to make you feel for the issues presented, then it's done its part.

However, as I mentioned earlier, I find it rather strange that HIV or AIDS is never mentioned explicitly. Could it be there this "disease which shall not be named" is following its self- fulfilling prophecy amongst men that it is shameful to be infected, and the misconception that victims were actually asking for it when they engage in risky activities, to follow the common attitude to hush it all up, and choose to disbelieve the bringing forward of the expiry date on their lives?

As a movie, the presentation is rather plain, and I thought that the narrative probably would be better if the stories were somehow spliced together neatly so that it flows nicely from one arc to the next, rather than opting for the lazy obvious way to segregate them. While nothing controversial is discussed, there are a few scenes that will raise a few eyebrows, and the best amongst those involves a very pregnant Lucy LIu in a field. I don't think I've seen any such scenes in graphic detail, and definitely not in the manner presented. Beats the one which is most talked about involving Chloe Sevigny.

It doesn't offer you new insights into the disease, but exhibits on common fears from both sides, and offers the dramatization of unscrupulous acts which help to propagate the problem on a much larger scale. If you're intrigued to watch it, you have to do so soon as I suspect it wouldn't last another week at the screens. Look out too for the local actor, Ng Chin Han (from the local television "comedy" series dud Masters of the Sea) in quite a meaty role as a Chinese soldier.

I saw this last night and just can't stop thinking about it. This film is off-the-charts audacious in its blend of tragedy and dark humor, with cinematography that ranges from powerfully beautiful (the South African sequences reminded me of John Ford movies like "The Searchers"), to a seedy quality that subtly conveys the weirdness of its humor and unethical qualities of its characters. The film also never flinches from showing us such taboos as male nudity and the indignities of a terminally ill man. Like the movie "Babel," this movie contains three stories, two of which are set in far-off lands, all dealing with complex issues and tragic ignorance.

The first story is about how practically an entire village in China acquires AIDS due to poverty-driven greed. The film's edge is in how it turns the tables on us psychologically; the people are not what they seem, and greed is not always clear-cut when it is a basic means of survival. The second story is a strange tale of a mother who handles the death of her husband and 'acceptance' of the fact that her son has AIDS in a way that leaves the viewer extremely perplexed and uncomfortable, which is actually a good thing. This film doesn't flinch from showing us AIDS stories we don't want to believe, such as those people who purposefully acquire it. It mixes dark humor with beautiful metaphors, such as the mother driving her sports car into an enormous pile of red leaves, until she's practically buried in it. The final seconds of that story leave a chilling print embedded on one's brain; what is this woman thinking?? The third story juggles a whole range of issues regarding ignorance, religion, greed, selfishness and selflessness, and balances them all on a head of a pin. One false move and the story would have come off as preachy or exploitational. Again, there is an iconic scene that stays indelibly in my mind; the beautiful and horrific sight of a woman's dead body lying under a thin blanket of mud.

The entire film does has some rough edges, which may at first put some viewers off. I found Olympia Dukakis' narration a bit difficult to accept at the beginning of the movie (during a strange and fascinating African ritual of male circumcision), but it all comes together by the very end - in fact, quite powerfully. The film also jumps back and forth in past and present, which may at times seem confusing, but the ultimate effect makes us reread our initial assumptions. And the first film in particular is quite slow, although again, I think there was a point to its languorous pace. We all know that the disease in question in this film is AIDS, but the location used in China is so rural that one feels that the time period could be any time in the past fifty years. In fact the circumcision scene at the beginning of the film makes one unaware of even what century we are witnessing! That I think, is the director Thom Fitzgerald's genius. I read a review that criticized this movie for not mentioning the word AIDS, which actually I was unaware of. But the fact is; this movie could be about any disease, as even the Chinese initial reaction to SARS was one of denial. This film does certainly illustrate the stigma associated with AIDS, but the fallout is much deeper than sexual practices in developing countries. The reason it has spread, as this film so eloquently shows, is not because of people's sex lives; it's spread because of ignorance, poverty, superstition, fear and greed. If we can just focus on fighting those battles, then maybe … maybe we can win.

This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time - but also one of the most harrowing and thought provoking. There are images from the film that will stay with me for a very long time. Uncomfortable viewing at times, but rewarding and some excellent and Oscar worthy performances - although I doubt it will puncture the consciousness of the Oscar voting brigade. the cast is wonderful, and the performances all the more powerful for being understated. The cinematography is amazing at times - and there are certain images that will stick with you long after you leave the movie. But be warned - this is not a light movie, it moves you to despair, challenges you, and in my own experience gives you nightmares. having said all that I am glad I saw it and would recommend it to you all

I was fortunate to see the director's cut of this film at the DC Filmfest. The audience was privileged to have the director, Thom Fitzgerald, make an unannounced visit and stay for questions afterwards.

3 Needles is three separate stories how AIDS spread in China, Africa, and the United States.

I found it a bit confusing to begin with some African scenes and then jump to the China story. I think this was to allow the narrator to introduce and to end the movie. The narrator was Olympia Dukakis and she had a part in the African story.

Lucy Liu led an outstanding cast in the story of its spread to China. Until this film, I did not realize that China had an AIDS epidemic. The movie shows how AIDS was spread through blood collection stations throughout rural China. China's vast rural population was perfect for exploitation. They were isolated; they needed the money; it took a long time to associate entire villages dying with the helpful blood collector.

The US story is somewhat familiar to us. A male porn star spreads it knowingly due to his greed. What makes this story unique is how Stockard Channing handles the discovery that her son is not only a porn star, but is dying. She educates herself on the disease and discovers a breed of vultures buying up the insurance policies of AIDS victims (viaticum companies) hedging their bets that purchasing a $2M policy for $1M will double their investment. She sets out to give herself AIDS and sell her insurance policy. What she does with the proceeds is the controversial part.

The African story reveals the director's Roman Catholic roots. One wishes that Sandra Oh had a larger part in this story. Chloe Sevigny is wonderful as a dedicated nun who chooses to submit to the local plantation owner (sorry, don't remember the African name for plantation) in order to get revenge / punishment on an adult male who has raped a young young virginal child in order to rid himself of the AIDS virus. As with the others, this story shows the many facets of this disease and the difficulty in assigning blame for its spread or for how people handle it.

Each of the stories has an odd element of humor to it. At times, I found it inappropriate for the subject, but perhaps that is also the message: we can laugh despite the hardships. I saw the director's cut, I wonder if this will be removed / downplayed in the cut that's released.

The cinematography is beautiful and sweeping in both Asia and Africa. The US scenes manage to show a true grit feeling.

Kudos to the director for assembling a really outstanding set of actors. Outstanding performances from Lucy Liu, the father-daughter team from the China story and Ian Roberts (the plantation owner).

There is a lot of sadness in this film artfully rendered, and a measure of grace too, which feels hard-earned. The writer-director Thom Fitzgerald, at the NY screening, said that the reality he encountered while researching it was probably even worse than he could bear to show. (Amazingly, the renowned Dr. David Ho was also present at the screening, which added another hopeful touch: HIV/AIDS progress is being made but, as the film shows, funding and education are still lacking in poor countries, and attitudes are often still messed up in rich ones.) There is a didactic purpose in 3 Needles, but fortunately Fitzgerald has the storytelling skills and the director's talent to bear the load. You may not buy everything in it, and you may be angry at him for some of the tough images and choices, but the human emotion and pain, the weakness and strength are gripping and undeniable. And many of the secondary observations, about characters and place, feel sharp and well-observed.

The prologue is a perfect example of a warm, vibrant image giving way to a shocking one: Teenage boys of an African tribe cover their bodies with a pale paste, un-self-consciously helping each other, though they are naked. It is an ancient ritual and they appear eager, joking around but purposeful. Later they are to be circumcised, the passageway into becoming men. The image of the knife, for reasons which will be instantly clear, is uniquely jolting. Surprisingly the movie manages to sustain the intensity, asking questions while shining a light on different corners of the world.

The acting and cinematography are uniformly good, the latter especially considering the low budget. Most of the South Africans were non-actors, including tribespeople who had never even seen a film. Fitzgerald called this version "the director's cut" since his Canadian distributor previously showed a much different version which cut several scenes, and jumbled the stories together. This might have made sense in another movie, but with the stories on 3 different continents, this version, with each played discretely, seemed much better. Also, Fitzgerald said he shot a 4th scenario which he cut, probably for length. See this on the big screen and it will very likely stay with you.