|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 25, @08:25PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Please. Tell me. It seems like some kind of lame punchline...
What does the REAL Dad think about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @12:59AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The name of the movie is First Do No Harm. I believe the father actually knew Meryl and that is how Meryl got involved (I used to know the name of the father but I can't recall at the moment).
Meryl also did a lot of advocacy for the treatment of epilepsy.
It turn out that after the kid was off the diet for a while he relapsed and had to go back on the diet. Last I heard (2 years) we has still on the diet. When the body burns fat it producess a bunch of different fatty acids. It is believed that one of these fatty acids is responsible for reducing seizures. Last I heard, the father had been able to isolate the agent and was looking for funding to attempt to synthesize the agent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @01:09PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Dateline program, he's off the diet and doing fine now. He was taken off the diet every two years at ages 2, 4, and 6 without success. Each time he started having seizures again. At 7, they tried again and he'd outgrown the problem at that point.
That's good news. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like they're going to change the story so that it's the mother that gets the child the proper treatment. After all, we can't have any positive portrayals of a father, can we?
Either that or it's the fact that Meryl Streep is an ugly enough woman to easily pass for a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @08:31AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I hear Hollywood are making a movie about the first moon landing in 1969. Many of us remember that momentous day when Nellie Armstrong stepped on the moon with that unforgettable line, "a small step for a woman but a giant leap for womankind". I don't think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They know they can make more money if they make the mom the hero. It plays better that way.
Was this movie made in 1997? It seems it was made not about the original story but a changed story of a family that lacked resources. This was not the case with the original I think.
streeponline
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd - I don't think the date is as important as the process. The fact is that a father went through a great deal to help and nurture his young child who was not being helped by the medical industry. He went "outside the lines" in order to find an alternative. Hollywood gets a hold of it and reframes it as the mother doing all of this. Why wouldn't they have simply written a script that portrayed a father as loving, nurturing and fighting for his child's well being? Because this culture is biased against men as fathers and prefers to envision them as cold, detached, non-intuitive, unloving and not paying child support. Mothers otoh, who murder their kids at a higher rate, who abuse them at a higher rate, are seen as the ultimate nurturers. We are straitjacketed by stereotypes and this movie plays out that restriction in spades. They chose the plot they did because of MONEY. They knew that if they portrayed a woman as the heroine it would harmonize with the stereotypes and be more popular because of it.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @01:25PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd - I don't think the date is as important as the process. The fact is that a father went through a great deal to help and nurture his young child who was not being helped by the medical industry. He went "outside the lines" in order to find an alternative. Hollywood gets a hold of it and reframes it as the mother doing all of this. Why wouldn't they have simply written a script that portrayed a father as loving, nurturing and fighting for his child's well being? Because this culture is biased against men as fathers and prefers to envision them as cold, detached, non-intuitive, unloving and not paying child support. Mothers otoh, who murder their kids at a higher rate, who abuse them at a higher rate, are seen as the ultimate nurturers. We are straitjacketed by stereotypes and this movie plays out that restriction in spades. They chose the plot they did because of MONEY. They knew that if they portrayed a woman as the heroine it would harmonize with the stereotypes and be more popular because of it.
In this case, I think the premise is incorrect. I think Meryl was picked for the part because Meryl was the only one willing to play the part. I too would have liked to have seen the real story, however. I see this as a story with many heroes: Meryl being one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anon saidIn this case, I think the premise is incorrect. I think Meryl was picked for the part because Meryl was the only one willing to play the part. I too would have liked to have seen the real story, however. I see this as a story with many heroes: Meryl being one.
What premise is incorrect and how is it incorrect?
She was the only one willing to play the part? I'd love to see you prove that one. I would have been very willing to play the part. ;>)
Yes, it is a story with heroes and Meryl plays it is this movie. The point was the sexism leading up to decide for it to change from being a loving father to being a mother instead.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @02:33PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. You are using "straw man" arguments. While you may have been able to play the part, you would not have been able to attract as much publicity as Meryl did. In fact, the movie would not even exist if Meryl hadn't gotten involved!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @04:01PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I think I did indirectly answer the questions. So I will answer more directly. The premise that there were hidden agendas when THIS movie was made, is FALSE. The movie was made to highlight the fact that doctors were mistreating children with epilepsy by ignoring a very effective method for treating children with epilepsy. I don't know if she was the only one willing to play the part. I do know she was the one who came up with the idea for making the movie. I do know she arranged funding for the movie. And I do know that the movie achieved its purpose extremely well - the diet is now regularly used as a fist line of defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @04:15PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but suppose Meryl Streep wanted to make a movie about a father who horrendously abused his children. She comes up with the idea of making the film. She arranges funding for the film. Do you really believe she would take the starring role? Even if she was willing to play the role, do you realy believe the film would get made? You are right in one respect when you say "there is no hidden agenda", because the film industry makes no effort to hide it's anti-male agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I suppose you would find it fine for Sean Connery to finance and produce a movie about Mother Teresa and play the leading role as a man. LOL. You continue to miss the point.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @05:02PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I never stated the film industry didn't have agendas. And I agree with men on this board who think the film industry has an anti-male agenda. However, I don't think that is the case with this particular movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 26, @05:36PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"..I don't think that this is the case with this particular movie."
You may be right, but I doubt it, given Meryl Streeps feminist credentials. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Meryl was picked for the part because Meryl was the only one willing to play the part.
Only one willing? That doesn't wash for a second. You're telling me that no male TV actor would take up an uplifting role about a father doing something great for his child? Please. Even if they couldn't get a name brand TV actor, there's plenty of starving ones around that would be happy to be in a Barney movie, much less this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meryl Streep - wasn't she the one who gave the university graduation address where she talked about historical bias against women? I wonder if she'd dare contemplate the bias inherent in this role switching?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
