The answer could be any of the above. The answer certainly is not a melodramatic sob fest. Wait, let me correct myself, the answer could be a melodramatic sob fest, but it should not be director Nick Cassavetes' latest novel-to-film adaptation My Sister's Keeper.
The film, starring Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin, is about a lawsuit that a genetically engineered girl launches against her parents for the rights to her own body. In a nutshell:
- At a young age, the Fitzgerald's oldest daughter is diagnosed with terminal leukemia.
- To save her life, they opt to genetically engineer a second daughter who's parts they can use for their cancer-stricken one: a donor child.
- At age 11, young Anna decides she's had enough of the surgeries, the needles, and the hospitals and decides to sue her parents for the rights to her own body.
However, instead of touching upon these questions, the film explores the family's past and more specifically the past of the terminal child. And although the film is touching with it's strong familial values, it falls short of hitting home. It just feels like the filmmaker's only goal was to make his audience cry. And that's all he did.
I have not read the novel on which the film is based, but apparently the differences between the two are disturbing.
I give the film one star out of four. Sorry Cassavetes, you had me with John Q, but lost me with this one.
THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA!! FOR THIS SPOILER
ReplyDeleteDifferences between film and novel
The main difference in the adaptation is the ending. In the novel, Anna wins her court case against her parents thus granting her medical emancipation, but Anna is involved in a car accident that leaves her brain dead. With Anna unable to make decisions about her body, her lawyer, Campbell Alexander, who was given medical power of attorney, thus giving him the power to make medical decisions concerning Anna, gives permission to have Anna's organs donated. Anna dies, but Kate lives on, believing that Anna took her place in heaven. In the film, Kate dies of the cancer and then Anna is told by her lawyer that she won her case. In both the film and the novel, Anna sues her parents only because Kate doesn't want to live on, and she is sick of making her family, and most of all Anna, suffer. In the film Judge De Salvo is a woman; De Salvo is a man in the novel. In addition, the film omits the character Julia, and the romantic subplot between Campbell and Julia, which in turn downplays the role of Alexander's service dog, Judge. During the movie's epilogue, it says that Jesse went back to school and in turn got an art scholarship to New York, whereas in the book he joins the police force as a drug bust. The movie takes place in Los Angeles, not the original Rhode Island. Two other subplots are also removed, including Jesse's role as a delinqent and the string of fires that he causes, and the other involving Brian's fascination with stars, which serves as a subplot to explain Anna's full name, Andromeda, is also cut.
As a whole, the film is more focused on Kate's memories, using the scrapbook she makes for her mother, than on Anna, who is a more prominent protagonist in the novel.
BUT SERIOUSLY NICK YOU WATCHED THIS MOVIE??? GIRLFRIENDS IDEA I HOPE??
Of course ;)
ReplyDeleteHuge differences though. Seriously, don't watch the movie.
If you thought the movie was just trying to make you cry, you should read the last chapter of the book. It's written from the perspective of Kate, who lives on, talking about the saddest possible things, about Anna, about her parents, about how depressed everyone is. Every sentence was engineered to stab you in the heart.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in the movie, they change the character of the Aunt. In the book her name is Suzanne (not Kelly) and she lives far away, is rich and successful, and only visits when something terrible is happening to Kate and is needed at the house. Whereas, in the movie, she basically lives with them.
Two things:
ReplyDelete1.) The first comment said that in the movie they omit the part about Jesse starting a string of fires. Coincidentally I remember making a sarcastic comment at some point during the movie about how Jesse is probably starting all of the fires that the dad has to be putting out since no one is watching that kid. I can't believe that I was right. The movie did a terrible job of setting that up or omitting that.
2.) The movie was so not JUST my idea. He wanted to see it just as much as I did. Okay, maybe not as much, but he did want to see it.