3 Needles

Here is another film of which I knew nothing that - thanks to the recommendation of my video service - has brought two intensely entertaining and thought-provoking hours to my life. It comprises three tales of the worldwide AIDS epidemic each unique and impressive.

The first takes place in rural China where Lucy Liu plays Jin Ping - a woman who is a black-marketeer of blood products. She and her partners prey upon residents of small villages who are basically ignorant of the complexities and dangers involved in donating blood. The villagers are poor, and the promise of much-needed funds is the bait used by Jin Ping. A farmer who is unable to give blood uses his daughter as the donor in order to make a better life for his family. The farmer and his daughter are played by two extraordinary Chinese actors who bring humor and - in the end - great pathos to their parts. In this first of the three parts the film shows ruin and death brought to an entire village through greed and apathy.

The second tale narrower in scope but is the most fascinating of the three. It takes place in French-Canada and revolves around a porn star and his family. Stockard Channing plays the mother in what is one of the strangest and most fascinating roles I have ever seen. To tell more would spoil the film for anyone who might view it, but I can assure you that Channing has accomplished something special in her portrayal of a mother's reaction to the illness of her son.

The third story in the film stars Olympia Dukakis, Chloë Sevigny, and Sandra Oh as nuns who travel to Africa to assist at a clinic. They become involved in various ways with the workers and the large agricultural company for which most of the local villagers work. In this third tale the scenery is so beautiful and impressive that it is almost beyond comprehension. The viewer is struck that within all of this natural beauty, lurks a deadly disease destroying the population.

In most films in which the driving theme is the destructiveness of AIDS, you would expect to see at least some characters who are gay men. There is not one gay person in this film. That very fact enhances the film's powerful message that this epidemic is not one confined to a small segment of society but to the world's civilization as a whole. If you wish to observe disease, religion, avarice, politics, love, hate and still be thoroughly entertained, I recommend 3 Needles.

This film is about 3 groups of people in three different continents having to do different things in reaction to the spread of the HIV virus.

This film shows excellent cinematography throughout. It shows a lot of beautiful scenery, such as breathtaking waterfalls, beautiful sunsets, new moons etc. The film is already worth watching just for the natural scenery! The 3 stories are spliced into one another, making it difficult to follow at times. It does show many disturbing images, both visually and metaphorically. It examines moral dilemmas and the evil side of humanity, especially in the latter half of the movie.

In summary, the film is enjoyable, but it sometimes feels too long.

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.

1st watched 4/3/2014 – 7 out of 10(Dir-Thom Fitzgerald): *reviewed version is Director's cut of app. 128 minutes* Powerful group of 3 stories centering around a spreading virus in three distinct cultures that isn't mentioned as being AIDS, but it's definitely implied. What makes this Canadian movie work is seeing the love displayed by the other folk who are watching the torment from the outside and doing whatever it takes to help ease the pain of the suffering ones. The first story doesn't actually begin until a prologue to what will eventually be the final story – but I think it is the strongest, with Lucy Liu playing a woman who sets up blood intake centers in an impoverished Asian nation only to find out that they are being infiltrated by sick donors who infect whole areas. A father played by Tanabadee Chokpikultong is the first one sick in his family, but ends up being the last survivor and performs amazing feats of sacrifice despite overwhelming feelings of sadness and sickness. The second story is about a male porn star who continues to work to support his mother and uncle despite the fact that he knows he is sick from something. The mother played by Stockard Channing decides to do her part after her uncle dies and she subsequently finds out what her son is doing and what he has. This part is set in Canada and involves an un-selfish action that is confusing that involves the mother but I believe the intent was to make her son's life more enjoyable while he is still alive. The final story attached with the prologue is narrated by a nun played by Olympia Dukakis giving it a slight documentary feel but is definitely slow going at first. It focuses on a group of nuns who are there to save souls primarily, but a younger nun played by Chloe Sevigny takes extreme measures on her own to keep a family together and safe from a local land owner. What these ordinary people do is not popular when you look at them from a legalized & moralized perspective but there is a greater good in mind by those who perform them. The movie ends by the asking the viewer if you could be one of those ordinary people(definitely not in a preachy way but in a compelling way). This film by Thom Fitzgerald is unique despite some slow parts primarily in the 3rd story and a slightly confusing 2nd story, but overall is a very good viewing, and worthwhile to the cause and to the moviegoer. ** Also viewed 125 minute Canadian version on 4/19/2014, still powerful but a couple of scenes cut out and edited differently where stories go back and forth more often, 2nd story is missing some important footage in this version, but it is closer to the original 123 minute Toronto International film festival version **

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.