The Essential Conflict in the film 'My Sisters Keeper' - Movie Review Example

Pro-choice or Pro-life: The Essential Conflict in the film “My Sister’s Keeper” and Number Submitted Abstract The movie “My sister’s keeper” is about the struggles of the Fitzgerald’s as they help Kate battle out her rare form of Leukemia. Though many would argue that Family Values are the central theme of the movie, the object of this paper is to point out the evidence that the movie is actually about the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. The acting, dialogue, cinematography and sound all worked so as to put this message across. Finding the central conflict to the movie then affords the audience to view what the movie is all about and helps in interpreting the message that the movie wants to convey. Keywords: “My sister’s keeper, pro-life, pro-choice, terminal illness, genetic modification Pro-choice or Pro-life: The Essential Conflict in the film “My Sister’s Keeper” Every narrative has a central theme wherein all the elements revolve around and link to so as to paint a reality that which entertains, informs, and or educates the reader. This is also true with regards to films. When there is more than one point of conflict, more often than not, films and narratives become too complex – confusing the readers or the audiences, and at the worst case, promote attention loss. “My sister’s keeper” is a film adaptation of the novel (of the same title) authored by Jodi Picoult in 2003. The film was released on the 25th of June 2009 in Canada, UK, Ireland, Mexico and the United States. By the 19th of January 2010 it had been shown all over the globe and also had its DVD premier. There were many themes explored in the movie like the bond between siblings, how to handle conflicts within a family, dealing and coping with terminal sickness, etc. However, the purpose of this paper is to prove that the central conflict (theme) of the movie “My sister’s keeper” is the debate between pro-life and pro-choice (Ebert, 2009). And though the ending suggests that this movie takes the position of pro-choice in this debate, that emphasis is given in the presentation of the debate itself rather than the side which the movie took in that debate. How the “debate” was presented A debate, essentially, is the comparison of at least two differing opinions in order to decide which among the arguments presented is best. As was mentioned, there is at least two sides that will give their most convincing arguments towards their cause, then a panel of judges will decide which of the two sides is best according to the points presented and the rebuttals that each side gave contrary to each other’s main points. The two arguments presented in the film is about how to best deal with terminal illness: (a) being pro-life, which entails doing everything one can to prolong the life of the sick even going beyond the person’s own wishes, and (b) being pro-choice, wherein euthanasia is permissible as long as it is the ardent desire of the person going through the illness. Recalling the movie, the most striking fact many would easily remember is the special case of Anna Fitzgerald’s birth and life. Being born for the purpose of being a donor to your dying sister is noble yet it is also possible to say that no one should be treated that way, and children should have the freedom to live their lives and enjoy their childhood. It may sound as if this was the main conflict of the movie but actually, Anna’s struggle is just one side of the debate – the pro-choice side. On the other hand, Sara Fitzgerald’s stand is that of pro-life. She as a mother literally did everything in her power to try and save her daughter Kate’s, life. She even decided to go through with genetic manipulation and in-vitro fertilization so that her eldest daughter would have a chance to survive. Even at the opening, the topics of the debate was plainly stated, when Anna goes to Atty. Campbell Alexander’s office to request his services in order to obtain medical emancipation from being donor to her sister Kate. Sara, who is also a top-ranked lawyer, takes the fight to court which becomes the panel that judges the outcome of a formal, scholastic debate. The Pro-choice argument Though at first, many will find that Anna’s decision to take things to court and hire a lawyer is uncalled for and selfish, but nearing the end of the movie, the truth is revealed that Anna is only acting on behalf of the wishes of her sister Kate. The sisters thought that filing a lawsuit is the only way they will make their mother realize that Kate just wants to live out her remaining days, letting the leukemia take its course, which will also free Anna from myriad medical procedures required of a perpetual donor. But Anna, till the last minute wanted everything to appear as though her elder sister did have any knowledge of this scheme. With that in mind, here were the argument points that Anna presented in court in order to get medical emancipation: The medical procedures are taking a big toll on her body. At the tender age of 11 years, Anna had been subjected and is constantly being subjected to various medical procedures in order to sustain her sister’s life. She had been the obliged donor for all of Kate’s needs – blood, stem cells, bone marrow and since Kate’s condition has worsen to the point of renal failure, she is expected to donate one of her kidneys as well. Anna is a bright, beautiful and active girl like any girl her age, but because of the frequent trips to the hospital and the restrictions she has to abide to in order to be a ready donor, she cannot enjoy the life she deserved. She plays soccer, and is in the cheer leading squad, but she won’t be able to do these strenuous activities whenever she donates something for her sister, and she will most likely never do these activities and so much more if she goes and donate one of her kidneys to her sister. All throughout the movie, there are flashbacks that depict the various procedures that had been one on Anna. There was also a footage partly showing Anna’s back which was bruised because of bone marrow extraction. There was also a dialogue that Attorney Campbell illustrated the pain of a bone marrow extraction to be so excruciating that even grown men would clench their teeth and scream, yet Anna had endured all of these as young as she is. Since the medical procedures are taking a toll on her body, preventing her from living a normal life and obstructing the bright future that is ahead of her. She is entitled to medical emancipation. Their mother has practically neglected her duties to the rest of her family. This accusation was one of the hardest and also one that is more apparent in the early to middle part of the movie. Sara was too focused on keeping Kate alive that she has practically neglected that she has a family that also longs for more of her attention and love. Anna is a smart girl; full of dreams and energy, yet her efforts go unappreciated, even unwelcomed if it will get in the way of Kate’s treatment. Jesse is a model student, a good brother, and a responsible son; however in their mother’s eyes and the audiences’ eyes, he was portrayed as a delinquent and reckless dude just because he does not take an active role in helping Kate recover. Brian is a loving dad and caring husband, but his efforts to inject joy back into their family as exemplified by the beach trip that he arranged for all of them are only met with anger and disdain by Sara which almost ended their marriage. Sara is very noble in setting aside her blossoming career for the sake of her sick child, yet it is not right to fully concentrate on only one member of the family while leaving the rest distraught and clearly hungry for acceptance, affection, and love. Obtaining medical emancipation may be the wake-up call that Sara needs in order to see and give attention to the needs of the rest of her family. It is not her responsibility to be her sister’s keeper. Imagine not having your own identity. Imagine being the product of need rather than love. These were all realities for Anna, because she was conceived for the (sole) purpose of having a genetic match for her sister Kate. Anna was born into this world to be her sister’s savior and she is a miracle of science at that. But the role of savior was not hers to choose, she was essentially forced into it and she was not given any freedom to choose the contrary. The medical procedures Anna was made to undergo before she had the mental capacity to make an informed choice is quite frankly an exploitation. The stuff she has already given (blood, stem cells, and bone marrow) can be regenerated but giving one of her kidneys? That is something permanent and can cause significant debilitation for the donor. The circumstances would be less of a crime if it was Anna’s choice to have all these procedures done to her at her own will, yet since she is not of legal age to do that, the only way for her to get out is through obtaining medical emancipation. Her previous sacrifices are more than enough to prove that she loves and cares for her sister but the choice of giving or withholding her kidney for her sister is her right which no one should have the authority to question. Those arguments are sound and are grounded upon the basic rights that each person should have. The case that Anna presented clearly holds in court and if you take into consideration that she does not really want to withhold her organs from her sister but she is just acting on behalf of her sister, then you would call her actions quite noble. But, being the brilliant lawyer that their mother, Sara was, she will not let her daughter Kate die without a fight. The Pro-life argument Kate was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer called promyelocytic leukemia when she was just a mere toddler and the doctors told her family that she would only live until her 5th birthday. Sara, Brian, and everyone in their family got themselves tested to see if they can be donors for Kate, but in dismay, none of them were a match. In desperation, Sara turned to science as a final means of salvation. They had fertility experts and geneticists “design” a baby for them that will be a genetic match for Kate, and that is Anna. She was their final hope, a seeming ray of sunshine in a gloomy and dark abyss. Willing to go that far to save her daughter Kate, Sara is not the person to surrender after being faced with Anna’s request for medical emancipation. In that regard, these are the arguments that Sara used to defend her pro-life position: Kate has so much to live for. Kate was not able to enjoy life like normal kids and in her situation, even simple things like going on a trip to the beach is life threatening. In the flashbacks, it is seen that she was not able to attend school and her interaction with other people are very limited because she was constantly going in and out of hospitals to get her treatments. During days that she was strong, we glimpse a very creative young lady who wishes to travel the world, make lots of friends, have pretty hair and fall in-love (as evidenced by her scrapbook). Sara just wants to give her a chance at that. I am her mother and mothers do everything they can for their child. Though it was not explicitly told in the movie, Sara does feel guilt in everything she “forces” Anna to do for Kate. If she can just take all the hurt and pain and put it upon herself, she would have done that ages ago. She is not a bad person. And she never wants to hurt anyone, especially her youngest daughter. Yet, though it pains her, she wills for the procedures and the treatments to occur so that Kate’s life will be prolonged. For Sara, doing nothing is equivalent to murdering her own daughter, and that she just can’t do. She had faced lots of judgment because of her decision to conceive in-vitro to have a customized “organ farm” for her sick daughter, yet, no one can deny that she just does that because she loves Kate that much. And it is not to say that she does not love Jesse, Anna, or her husband Brian. Kate just needs special attention and that is what she is giving, as any mother ought to do. How can you be so selfish? Would you just let your sister die? Families are meant to help each other, even to the point of sacrificing one’s self for the other. That is what makes family ties strong. The Fitzgerald’s were able to maintain their family intact because they bore each other’s burdens and they did everything in their power to ease the pain that the other was feeling. It was portrayed that Sara was not really angry with Anna’s refusal to give her kidney to her dying sister, but she was furious with the fact that she needed to do directly to court just to get her point across. Anna’s actions were selfish on the outside, and anyone in Sara’s shoes will be enraged with the sudden turn of events. Sara has also sacrificed a lot to be able to take care of her family while caring for Kate, and she cannot comprehend why Anna chose to add insult to injury by bringing the case to public court. She also thought that Anna loved her sister (as evidenced by the sweet moments and flashbacks they had together), yet her action of wanting medical emancipation screams otherwise. This she cannot comprehend and the medical emancipation that would kill her eldest daughter, she just can’t let happen. The Central Conflict It is clear that the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate was in the movie as evidenced by the scenes mentioned above; however being present does not mean that the whole story revolved around this subject. Yet, with close examination, it is evident that the movie is one big debate, and in fact the position Pro-choice won. The following details and scenes will prove that this movie is essentially a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate. The progression of the scenes is ordered such that the audience will sympathize more with Anna (pro-choice) than with Sara (pro-life). Some may argue that the director Nick Cassavetes merely gave life to what was written in the book. But as many novel-based movies have shown, directors, scriptwriters, and producers exercise certain liberties so as to crunch a full novel into a 109-minute feature film. And though ever so subtly, the way the events were ordered in the movie made it easier for the audience to accept Anna’s choice to be emancipated from the influence of her parent with respect to being Kate’s only donor. It started with Anna, going alone into this attorney’s office to ask for his help in suing her own mother. After Anna explained to Campbell her situation, he agrees to help her with no cost because he suffers from epilepsy enabling him to know how it feels like to not be in-control of one’s own body. The actions of Kate in the hospital: trying to cheer up her family, and enjoying every minute that she can – even finding love which was not technically approved by her family, is a plight for independence and making decisions for one’s self. Just when the audience seem to be swayed into thinking that that the actions of Anna will eventually destroy their family, there was that tear jerker scene in the courtroom where Jesse testifies and makes Anna tell everyone the truth that the whole lawsuit for medical emancipation was Kate’s idea. Even the family’s last beach trip was symbolic because it was Kate’s wish to go to the beach and spend a beautiful day with her beloved family. All the little details were carefully chosen from among many great scenes in the book, and ordered in such a way that the audience will eventually side with Anna, though not completely making a monster our of Sara. The background lobbied for the pro-choice cause. It was really masterful how the cinematography, as well as the music worked together so as to bring this message out. The hospital scenes during the times of Kate’s confinement, there were many footages of her peering out of the window, like a bird that has been caged and wants to be let out. The tone of the music was always happy whenever one of Kate’s wishes comes true, but it was always foreboding and sad every time Anna goes in to the hospital to once again donate something for her sister. Their house during scene of Sara’s exasperation over Kate’s worsening condition is always overcast, and dark yet during flashbacks of the sister’s together, there was always light and warmth. all of these elements, though not easily noticeable conditions the audience that They should not question the choice of Kate as to her wish to not proceed with the kidney transplant. The elements in the background says it simply, when Kate’s wish comes true, everything is fine and happy, but when it does not come true, then things turn out to be sad and gloomy. The rest of the cast was pro-choice. Brian understood Anna’s plea and did not react as harshly like Sara. Jesse loved her little sister so much and he became the key to understanding all the reason behind the seeming “selfishness” of Anna’s lawsuit. Kate, though she was in a physically frail state, did her best to enjoy life as she wanted. Kate’s “boy friend” Taylor Ambrose, gambled on love even though he’s got only moments to live – choosing also to live his life the way he wanted and not let his sickness control it. Even the doctors were pro-choice, since they let Kate out of the hospital to enjoy a day at the beach. They knew that Kate did not want to proceed with the kidney transplant and they have warned Sara that the likelihood that she’ll survive the operation is slim. All the major players in the story agreed (some explicitly, while others implicitly) that Kate and Anna should be the ones to make the decisions for themselves, in how they will live-out their lives. In the end, the judge’s decision was to rule that Anna be medically emancipated from her parents, yet that decision came after Kate had already died. That turn of events is the final proof that the movie was more about the debate, rather than the outcome of the debate. It did not really matter which side won, but it was a matter of how Anna, Kate, Sara and the rest of the cast held on to their beliefs and convictions. If it were merely about which side wins, then the appropriate ending would have been to give the decision before Kate died. The family relations, the inner turmoil of the characters, the medical jargon and all the scenes would not have been there if the debate between pro-life vs. pro-choice central to the story. Having known the essential conflict of the movie, we can now perceive how the society shaped the movie and how it subsequently affected those in the audience. “My sister’s keeper” can be classified as a typical family drama that exemplifies the debate of pro-choice vs. pro-life. When it was shown in 2009, genetic modification and genetic mapping were all the rage in the life sciences. The possibility of having real life “Anna’s walking on our street was a possibility. Yet after watching the movie, the audience will stop and think about the repercussions of genetically modifying persons to suit specific needs. It may be revolutionary step for the world of medicine yet clearly, the ethics of how to proceed in such an endeavor is not yet in place. The audience was given a glimpse of how it is like to deal with terminal illness and genetically engineered people: they are entitled to a choice, yet who really knows what’s best for them? Is it the person themselves? Or those that have a bigger view of the situation like family and friends? Should the decision come from the doctors and learned people with plaques ad degrees? Or should the general consensus of society dictate the outcome of the debate? In the end, everyone is entitled to choose how to run the rest of their lives. It is just a matter of exercising that right. References Curmudgeon Films, Gran Via Productions, and Mark Johnson Productions and Director Cassavettes, N. (2009). My sister’s keeper. United States of America. New Line Cinema. Ebert, R.. (2009). Movie Review: My sister’s keeper. RogerEbert.com < http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/my-sisters-keeper-2009> Sluis, S. (2009). Film Review: My Sister’s Keeper. Film Journal International. Read More