The Fever

This film is not meant to be a denunciation of capitalism or an embrace of Marxism, only an examination of the intrusion of one upon the other. It does well reflect Vanessa Redgrave's own personal conflict between her own privileged existence and the less fortunate (by her standards) in the Third World. This is the eternal dichotomy facing so many (though not all) First World liberals. They fail to see that capitalism developed as a result of peasants informing themselves, working together and rising up to replace the hegemony which has dominated them. Historically, it has been a slow process, often taking centuries, even millenniums. First World liberals want to see it happen rapidly, but the Third World isn't ready for it. Those countries and their people must go through the process of education that will bring them to the point where they can successfully undertake "the revolution." It may not initially succeed, not because the cause isn't righteous but because the people aren't sufficiently steeled to survive it. The reviewers of this film, for the most part, only see the perceived injustice - capitalism is the oppressor, because of its success. But that is only because they see the Third World peoples aspiring to be the First World's definition of success. There is no indication that this is true. Rather, it would seem that the so-called "poor people" just want life to be a bit better. Over the long run this will work its way to great success. The process cannot be rushed; historically, that has never worked. There are many capitalists who see their mission as helping to make lives a little bit better, in small steps which can assimilated, not upheaval which can't be encompassed in such a large dose. That is why one cannot impose democracy on a country which is still living in a society rooted in the way of life of centuries ago. In my view, the film acknowledges this while still encouraging us to accept the challenge of reaching out. The reviewers, mostly, missed it.

When I read a description of "The Fever" and saw that it stars Vanessa Redgrave and Michael Moore, I knew that I was in for something politically charged. But I didn't realize how politically charged. Redgrave plays an anonymous rich woman who takes a trip to an economically depressed country with no identified name or geographic location (although it looks kind of like they combined Latin America with Eastern Europe). Coming down with a fever there, she now has to reassess how and why she lives a privileged life, and whether or not she even deserves it.

I wholeheartedly recommend this movie, not least as a study of the class system dominating the world. Not only do they look at that, but also at the oft failed aim of revolutions (the leaders quickly become as corrupt as they thugs whom they overthrew). But it certainly sides with the pro-democracy movement over the oligarchy; after all, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.

Anyway, this is one that you have to see. It's no surprise that Wallace Shawn wrote this, given the great work that he's done in the past. Also starring Angelina Jolie, and directed by Carlo Nero (Vanessa Redgrave's son whom she had with "Camelot" co-star Franco Nero).

I saw this at the Virginia film festival and it was wonderful. Could have used better direction, but Vanessa Redgrave was marvelous nonetheless. As an added note, she did not get her son this film. He got it on his own and had her star in it. I thought it was a brilliant piece of work that could have been better but got its message across. It Was Wonderful And deserves much, much more Also, this film was a HUGE HIT at the festival. They had to add another day to screen it because it was sold out on its regular schedule and there was so much demand. So to those who don't like it, I say that the general public (At least those in Virginia) love it.

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.