mgbruzon

It was bound to happen. With the surge in the popularity of documentaries in recent years (roughly post- Michael Moore ), so-called serious documentaries dangerously dis-informing the public have begun to appear.

Of these, this is the first one I definitely identify as FALSE and DISHONEST, and that I feel so strongly about, that I would waste my time writing about it. Recently shown in Brazil and in Argentina (and clicking on "Release Dtaes" in other Third World and Disadvantaged Countries), SHOWCASING A FILM LIKE THIS IS ALL A LOCAL COMMUNITY NEEDS TO UNDO YEARS, IF NOT DECADES OF HARD WORK, AND MILLIONS OF DEATHS.

This "DOCUMENTARY" follows (without citing him) the South African Prime Minister's ignorant call to a crusade that "HIV does not cause AIDS." This was possibly Mbeki's most infamous "faux pas" until he recanted following Winnie's (and Nelson's) Mandela's that "poverty doesn't cause AIDS, HIV CAUSES AIDS.

Though the fact that HIV causes AIDS has not been totally confirmed following the complicated, if not inexact and faulty "explainable" logic exposed in this film, HIV is certainly a common factor in every AIDS case. The hard rhetorical questions posed by the film "experts"(you'll easily recognize them - CLEARLY presented as the normal, nice guys) cannot be ignored.

But if all medical theories are scrutinized to the extreme this film plunges into, to disqualify the importance of isolating HIV, then few if any "medical truths" are irrefutable. I mean, the "Adam and Eve" hypothesis of creation would be a very plausible scientific explanation for the creation of mankind to to these fanatics.

If the "experts" are easily recognizable in this film, so are the BAD GUYS - the HIV theory supporters. Few of these bad guys, if any, say that it is PROVED that HIV causes AIDS (but rather that they are related), but these "BAD GUYS" are imminently more qualified to speak than the "good guys" (common people who could not have been made to look more "natural" or like the "next door neighbor."

But this film, in its sick crusade, clearly and manipulatable show these unaccredited "normal" people we can all identify with as "wise experts" The real experts are shown as villains, in such caricatures and cheesy editing, that a smart person doesn't know whether to laugh at these sophomoric efforts, or cry for the masses the film makers may manipulate.

How can these "bad guys" (as accredited as they are) be blown away by the "good guys"? EASY. The wonders of the documentary. You show only the perspective you want, you create the good and the bad guys, using the most basic human psychology. And then, you go around the world with your production. The more uninformed and dis-informed the area, the BETTER for the film makers. Just "razzle dazzle them" with the pack of lies you've fabricated in your documentary.

Boy, am I sorry I saw it. And may it NOT be the start of truly cruel and irresponsible disinformation campaigns that this new documentary "craze" can definitely spawn.

This is a film with NO sense of responsibility. I can only compare it to the continued marketing of cigarettes (not allowed to advertise in its own countries) flooding the world's poorest countries, and targeting its most disadvantaged people, with the glamorous (and DEAD) "Marboro" man. The film's message is a disgrace, a disservice to humanity, and an insult to all those who have died from, or have done something to combat AIDS.

SHAME ON YOU, film makers, wanting to "make a name" at any price! And I mean others' peoples' lives. And strong "boos" to international film festivals for not screening the film before allowing these lies to be shown as "American scientific fact" to its communities.

An interesting film addressing racism in provincial France of the late 19th century. A black doctor from the French Caribbean assumes the position of town doctor. He replaces a white doctor, and finds his practice is empty and devoid of patients.

He realizes that, in order to remain in his position, he must gain the confidence of the local population. His strategy is to first conquer the mayor's trust, who's taking his family to a nearby town in order to be treated. The story is well told, and technically, the TV film is impeccable.

I imagine that the writer's (an director's) intention is to show how little racist feelings have changed in European small towns in the last 120 to 150 years. While the doctor enjoys the respect of his assistants, the local bourgeoisie accepts him; but as a rarity, a desired sex object for many women.

You're not a "nègre" is something the doctor hears, but does not accept. It's the same comment assimilated Jews and other racial groups have had to accept to integrate into most communities. The points of not really being black and being a rarity are accentuated when the local zoo has African tribal men from the colonies in cages like monkeys, and with monkeys too.

The doctor cannot accept this spectacle, but he realizes its symbolism. The women who chase him are after his uniqueness, just as if he belonged in a zoo. The powerful men in the town also cannot overcome their prejudice, and often justify the doctor's acceptance by his Carbbean, rather than direct African heritage. The doctor's father had come from the Creole elite, a plantation and slave owner, who had married a slave. That's how our doctor had access to medical school.

In all, the film is outstanding as a made for TV film, with excellent production values, wonderful reconstruction of the period, its costumes and bygone language. But it reminds us that the very basic in mankind has not changed much at all in 120 or 150 years. Now playing on Cable TV in the Americas.