Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
The watcher shouldn't really have to assume anything in a film like this that is trying to convey a message. She might be, she might not be. She is a fictional character, it's up to the writers to decide. Those who understand the issues will assume there are other factors such as debt. Those who do not will not consider those factors and find her situation to be unrealistic, and thus, will fail to adjust their preconceptions, lessening the potential impact of the film by - as I said before - preaching to the choir. You went into the film already sympathetic, it doesn't rally matter what you assume about her situation? What matters is outlining the very real problems people face, to those who go into the film neutral or unsympathetic, in hopes that their opinions might change. Presenting an unrealistic situation that doesn't quite "fit" will only prompt people to reject the message and along with it, the REAL issues of western poverty, doing more harm than good.
|
You did, you made all manner of assertions, that her entire weekly outgoings are less than the cost of a nandos for one!
It matters not if you go in there sympathetic or not, how do you get from the context of abject fuel poverty, food bank use, shoplifting sanitary products that she in actual fact has (or should have in your mind ) more than enough to live on?...
Easy, you ignore that subtext of spiraling debt, shoplifting fines , travel costs, new school uniforms, bills, food/household costs.