The Fever

I wont go into a commentary about the structure of the film.However, I do find great trouble in the movies implication that many of us in the West are responsible for the misery of the people in the 3rd world. There is an insurmountable amount of evidence in the fields of economics and political science which clearly shows that much of the 3rd worlds suffering comes from poor political institutions. I guess the one area where it is appropriate to find fault with the West is there use of farm subsidies, which ultimately negatively affects the lives of millions of farmers in the 3rd world and consumers in the first world. However, arguing that the purchase of goods and services on the global market somehow creates poor people is a psychotically inaccurate message to promote, which this film does to a large degree. China, India, Ireland, and many emerging East Asian countries have grown much wealthier and in the process lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty precisely because we in the West buy goods and services from around the world. I sympathize with the film's intent to draw light on the plight of the poor, however, they have found precisely the wrong reasons for the 3rd world's poverty and an even worse remedy for the problem. Commerce amongst free people is something that should be championed and regarded in the same esteemed light as the freedom of speech.

I kept waiting and waiting for the interesting twist. The flash of insight, the window into the human sole.

All I got - a pathetic excuse for marxist apologetics which glosses over any real politics with a healthy dose of hand-waiving. A waste of 83 minutes of my life which I will never get back.

If you are a socialist then there a far better films. If you are not then this is hardly in danger of challenging your convictions. Go read the motorcycle diaries!

It feels as if this was written by a guilty middle-class teenager who has just returned from a gap year funded by mummy and daddy. I am surprised that Michael Moore stooped to be in this film, his brief cameo is one of the few highlights of an otherwise lifeless and self-indulgent romp through cliché and rhetoric.

This is a tough concept to take in, but yes somewhere down the line we all are guilty. We may not know it, but we are. But then again that's how this chaos called world runs.

For some this movie is just too much over their heads, for some its gold, some its an awakening and to some just a movie. Well it all depends what we wanna see and what we have seen, in our life. Its not only whites or some other people who are the ones to be blamed or said to be the evil. But its a cycle. After all if one person is eating a meal that means, there is someone in this world who is going with out a meal. If you get a job then others don't. If you succeed then others fail, etc etc. But this is a thoughtful film, don't take it as an insult or disrespect just because you are rich or white or any one who feels offended for what reason god knows. You were just lucky nothing else, that you have the time to see and be repulsed by this movie. Some don't get enough time to even breath properly.

Hell is not somewhere we'll go when we die. Its a constant revisiting place, that we visit each time we come back to reality from a few moments of piece and or love. Blessed ones enjoy and for those who don't get it now, don't bother, because if you could then this movie wouldn't have been made. And don't look for solutions in this movie, its just a movie about realization not solutions.... If you think there is then look closer.

Adapted from Wallace Shawn's play, The Fever is a rather obscure film. It was made as an HBO film, but it never received much support from the network and subsequently was aired years after it was completed with little fanfare. It's the story of an upper-middle class woman's political awakening as she learns why there is such a massive gap between the rich and the poor, while coming to a realization about her own place in society. It utilizes long monologues and animated sequences to illustrate certain points, and it powerfully describes the exploitative and imperialistic relationship the first world has with the third. While some reviewers say it's about "white guilt," more accurately it's about understanding the true nature of capitalism, as well as what is necessary to bring a new and better world into being: revolution. Hollywood legend Vanessa Redgrave stars and lends considerable gravitas to the controversial material.

I categorically disagree with the comment left by the last person. I believe that individual missed the point of the movie entirely. This was an observation of first world Capitalism through the eyes of someone who was exposed to the concept of Marxism. Through the eyes of Marxism, the statements made, (not only with regard to the reasons for poverty conditions in third world countries, but the self-realizations of "place in the world" delivered by Vanessa Redgrave), are entirely accurate. The movie acknowledges that some of the concepts of Marxism are impenetrable and even dead, if not antiquated. It does, however,take an artistic view of how, through that belief system, a woman who is fully immersed in Western commerce is given the opportunity to look at how things are in this world through another belief system. A belief system which, by the end of the movie, is given somewhat of a revival because of the truth about what Capitalism (and prior to that Imperialism) does to third world countries. Poor governmental structures are not the cause of third world poverty, rather the result of societies that have no importance to first world governments. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is truly outstanding. The movie is not to be missed, with which to either agree or disagree.