The Fever

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.

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).

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.

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.

This movie completely took me by surprise. I was a bit taken aback by a commenter here who found it odd that the main character had not been out in the "world". Until recently when the US government made it mandatory for citizens who carry a passport when visiting our neighbors Canada and Mexico, only 20% of Americans had passports. I.e, only 20% of Americans have a clue as to how hated we are in the world. But, I digress.

For every issue one can imagine, there are always two sides of the proverbial coin.

The character that Vanessa Redgrave plays is one who becomes aware that there are people in the world that work just as hard as she had in her lifetime who have less. Far less. And this is a message that for Americans (I cannot speak for anyone else in the world and do not presume to speak for all Americans) this is a difficult concept. For here anyone born into any circumstance has the possibility of making anything out of oneself with hard work and dedication. It is hard to conceive of countries where that is not a possibility.

In a foreign country and in the midst of a fever, a woman examines her upbringing, her circumstances, and her shock that not everyone who works hard attains prosperity. Her torment is merely what each and everyone of us should examine in our own lives, especially at a time when immigration is such an issue in the US, a country born to welcome the downtrodden from other countries. When her fever ends, she longs for her soft cotton sheets and other comforts of her home and that with which she is familiar. Yet she is changed. For she is awakened.

I think this film is one that everyone should see. And now that HBO has begun to air it, there is no excuse not to see it. It is not black and white. There are no clear cut villains or heroes. There are issues of entitlement but entitlement is an ongoing issue to any thinking person. It is something men take for granted that women will never know. It is something whites takes for granted that people of color will never know. Entitlement is often so subtle that it takes intense examination to truly understand what it is. And this is something "The Fever" undertakes. Everyone works hard. Why does it have pay offs for some and not for all? Don't disregard this film as just another "liberal" film. Let it seep into your soul and give it some real thought. For it is truly food for thought. It is food for the soul.

The scene with Micheal Moore and the conversation about the delicious ice cream is a powerful scene. It is one that can be applied daily here in the US (obviously not as milk). One can use the milk to make ice cream to increase tourism to a country and thus prosper the country. Or, it can be used to feed all the children (and thus prosper the country in a different manner).

Metaphysically this movie pits the concept of limitation against the concept of limitlessness. Methaphorically speaking, is there really only enough milk for one or the other? Does this movie perpetuate the illusion of the responsibility of fairness in the world when not only is that concept subjective but obviously (if only noted of birth circumstances) to be a falsehood? Or does this movie inspire us to strive to make the world a better place for all? Should one feel guilt when one realizes that ones hard work does not justify ones comfort, when in reality all work hard but are not all comfortable? And what steps should we take when that realization is made?

See this movie, if for no other reason than . . . to think. It deserves your thought.

What I thought of was that song, "he ain't heavy. He's my brother."