The first installment in the series of films for English 197A, Ethical Dilemmas on Film, encourages us to think about our personal and political involvements through the lens of our ethical commitments. While few of us are likely to find ourselves in the precise roles of the protagonists, Lawrence and Gina, their story raises a set of questions with which we all arguably ought to be concerned. Here are some of the many ethical questions that The Girl in the Café, raises:
Consider Gina's last line. "Does it matter whose child?"
- What do we owe to other people's children?
- Should we value children in our own country more than children in other countries?
- Should we value children in our own town or state more than children in other towns or states?
- Do you believe that parents in Africa value their children as much as parents in Europe and the United States value theirs?
- Is there a way to measure the value of a human life?
Can politics allow us to do the right thing by the world's poor and starving? Do politics prevent us from doing the right thing?
What do you think of Gina's behavior?
- Is it inappropriate? Is it rude?
- Should she be allowed to stay at the G8 summit?
- How would you behave in such a situation?
- How would you treat Gina?
- How would you think of Gina?
Do the two halves of the movie work well together?
- Does the discussion of global poverty work well in the context of a romantic comedy?
- What details of the romantic comedy are put to use in the discussion of global poverty? (Think about SPECIFICS. How are rooms decorated? What do the characters eat? Which lines of dialogue are significant?)
The Girl in the Café was written, directed, and acted by Brits. How is the United States portrayed?
How does Bill Nighy's performance contribute to your feeling about this film?
After watching the film, feel free to provide short comments and relevant links below, or to submit longer responses for possible publication here to: rockethics@psu.edu, with the subject line 'State Theatre Films'.
The most moving part of the film was Gina’s last line “Does it matter whose child?” This line was so touching is because created a feeling of empathy for all children who endure homelessness, starvation, child abuse, and so on. As adults, we absolutely have an obligation to our youth because just as our parents, neighbors, teachers, and mentors protected and guided us, we should ensure that the next generation is in good hands. Another way of looking at this is thinking of our own children, siblings, etc. (having empathy). We should do for other children as we would do for those close to us. This is hard, however, because as human beings, we have a natural tendency to be selfish and to ignore what we cannot physically see.
Lastly, there is no way to measure the value of human lives for we, as human beings, simply do not have that power. EVERY person has a right to be here and EVERY person should be able to fulfill his/her purpose. In this great “circle of life” we are ALL important and when children’s lives are unnecessarily cut short, we never know what change has just occurred in the world. We never know what could have been.
Lastly, I really enjoyed the movie and the many themes that were included. I realized what my responsibilities are as a member of society and know that I need to defy conformity in order to allow for change. This can be seen in all Penn State students today, who have chosen to attend the school despite recent events which has battered its reputation.
If you are having trouble using the blog, please email me at lrs18@psu.edu
You are not required to answer any of the questions I have posed. These are all suggestions and only suggestions. You may write as little as 1 paragraph and much more if you have more to say.
Lisa
I think the most important issue raised by The Girl in the Café was the ethical dilemma posed by proximity. Do the politicians at the G8 Summit have a responsibility to save people they will never meet? If so, what is the maximum cost they can expect their own constituents to incur in doing so? In solving the complex problem of global poverty, there are winners and losers. Many of the ethical questions that arise in solving these problems are not black and white issues.
The extent to which politicians (and everyone else, really) help people they’ve never met depends on how well they humanize others. The politicians in The Girl in the Café had their own nation’s interest in mind above all else because that’s who they have to answer to. Their constituents are their responsibilities, and whatever country they come from, they probably took an oath swearing to take care of their own. In addition to this, one must also consider the fact that these men would never meet the people they were refusing to help. They would never have to look them in the eye and say, “Sorry, but we are not going to give you the means to survive.” Heartless? Maybe a little, but consider the facts and figures being tossed around at the G8 Summit. The sheer number of numbers that were being looked at is staggering. When human lives are presented as data sets, anyone would have a hard time empathizing. I’m not claiming that the politicians were ethically justified, only that the issue is more complex than it first seems.
Gina brings up a good point when she suggests that pictures be included in the reports. Pictures, rather than numbers, help us all to see the struggle for life that people in third world countries go through on a daily basis. Scientific studies have shown that people’s lines of vision (infants, specifically) are drawn to the shape of a human face. We empathize more readily with those that we see. By listing the facts and statistics regarding infant mortality, HIV infection rates, and the deaths of innocent children, a person can only engage these problems on an intellectual level. To adequately address life or death issues, however, one has to be emotionally invested in the well being of their fellow humans. This is not solely done by pictures, but it helps. So the question I am left with is this: is it a moral or ethical failure to lack the ability to humanize people you will never see? Maybe it is, but the task is not as simple as it appears. Ultimately, I don’t think lack of imagination is a sin. A gross symbol of the information age, perhaps, but not a sin.
ARE YOU STILL HAVING PROBLEMS COMMENTING?
CLICK ON THE MOVIE TITLE – THE GIRL IN THE CAFÉ.
SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE TO SIGN IN TO LEAVE A COMMENT.
YOU MAY HAVE TO TAKE A SHORT QUIZ. THEN YOU’LL BE REGISTERED AND CAN START BLOGGING.
IF YOU WANT TO WRITE IN WORD, SIMPLY COPY (CONTROL
C) AND PASTE (CONTROL V) INTO THE LEAVE A COMMENT SPACE.
The Girl in the Café
Gina’s last words of, “Does it matter whose child it is?” hold true to a major theme that I gathered from this film: empathy. Humans, and I like to believe all humans have this innate potential, are empathetic beings. Our ability to imagine and even feel emotions that we have not personally experienced is one of few characteristics that separate us as homo erectus. Gina illustrates this beautifully throughout the film. She serves as the constant reminder that the G8 representatives were not dealing with toy figures or hypothetical situations, but with real people. These people have genuine and relatable feelings, stuck in unfortunate situations in which dinner banquets have tried to cover up. She suggests the addition of pictures and visuals to better illustrate the extreme poverty that they really are in control of. Similarly, her last line reminds the viewers that a child is always a child to someone; our personal experience is not the only one that matters. Thus, when someone has the ability, power, or chance to speak for those who can’t speak for themselves, this privilege cannot be overlooked or understated. These voices are those who truly tie our world together in its bare essentials and ideals, breaking down the perceived cultural barriers of skin color, tradition, or even geographical location.
It could easily be argued that Gina was being “rude” or “inappropriate” at the dinner party and in her undeserving position, especially by British standards. However, I believe that Gina was not being so direct in hopes of accomplishing all over her goals. Instead, Gina was being the voice that was being subdued by these national leaders; she was speaking as their subconscious guilt and morale that all were trying to ignore or compromise. Her extremist opinion seemed annoying, but it set a standard for them to begin with. It set a basic goal that may be out of reach, but provided an extreme ideal to work back from and reach a better, more productive consensus than the one that was going to be passed.
Thus, I see this film as a beautiful representation of the wondrous act of speaking out against authority and the accepted way of doing things. It shows the mysterious fate of life in which the seemingly most insignificant encounters can change not only one life, but the future of many given the right tools, opportunities, and, of course, a loud voice.
“The Girl in the Café” is a thought-provoking film that raises questions as to whether or not we can make selfless, ethical decisions that benefit others as opposed to ourselves. Of course, like everything in life there is plenty of gray area to dispute. Why is it easy to ignore the misfortunes of others who are removed from our lives, yet we dwell on petty and trivial problems? How can the politicians at the G8 Summit in the film decide the fate of the rest of the world?
We see Gina continually asking herself these questions throughout the film, which leads to her speaking out in a way that the others find incredibly inappropriate, causing everyone to feel uncomfortable, but I don’t see her behavior as out of line. Instead, I see a woman who is able to look past political statistics and see the true ethical dilemma at hand. When Gina speaks of global poverty, she creates an imagery with her words that all of the politicians are lacking. When she asks “does it matter who’s child?”, it speaks volumes about her character. Gina becomes the voice for all of the things Lawrence is unable to articulate. What made Gina’s words so outlandish is that she has zero political background or education whatsoever; had Lawrence pushed for the issues of world poverty on his own, I think they would have still be discouraged, but received better by his colleagues. I suppose that I pity Lawrence. He’s constantly being walked all over by his coworkers, he has an awkward manner and wants so desperately for everything to go along swimmingly and it seems as if the odds are always against him.
At the beginning of the film, I thought there was no way there could be a romantic comedy that centers around politics. It would never work. However, I was pleasantly surprised and David Yates pulls it off effortlessly.
Being a big fan of Kelly MacDonald and never having heard of this movie, I went into the film already interested. One of the first things I noticed, direction-wise, was the way Lawrence walked down the hall as he was reading his manuscript at his workplace. He surgically sidestepped every person he came in contact with so as not to bump into them or prevent them from continuing on their predetermined path. The way this scene was directed struck me, because Lawrence's movements were not only all stiff and robotic (he steps away in a straight line, never shuffling or spinning or swerving) but rote. He never even looked up to see where he was going. It is as if he is trying to be as unobtrusive as possible--the thought of making waves frightens him. I think this is a great example of how the directorial aspect of the film coincides with the film's message. If Lawrence represents us, the average middle-class folk, than we are in a constant struggle to avoid the confrontations in life. We take the path that is the most clear and easy to us, and in doing so, desensitize ourselves to the struggles of others.
Additionally, the scene where Lawrence and Gina are sitting at the table emphasizes the same idea that being proximate to something or having to face it head-on can quickly deflate anyone's protective personal bubble. If Gina had not moved to sit opposite Lawrence at the booth, I sincerely doubt Lawrence would have returned to ask her out. When we are confronted with something or forced to examine it in our conscious mind, it becomes relevant to us in a way it was not when we were on our predetermined paths through life. The things that derail us and demand our closer inspection are the things that shape us. Just like Gina's suggestion to add pictures of starving children and sick people in Africa in the manuscript, it is often that we only accept things as real when we can see them in front of us.
This film challenges us to seek out those things that go unnoticed or have been placed on the back burner in our minds. Gina derails Lawrence, and as we see in the film, once he has been derailed from his average daily life, he seeks out Gina more and more, as if he cannot get enough of what he has experienced. This film encourages us to seek out the things that puzzle us, confuse us, or strike passion in our hearts (in this case, both romantically and ethically) and to embrace them wholly...otherwise, continue through life as another cog in the machine.
Gina's statement, "Does it matter whose child?" holds a lot of meaning about Gina's character, as well as the overall theme of the film. When she says this, she explains her reasoning for all of the speaking out she did throughout the movie about how the G8 should focus on getting rid of poverty. Many of the G8 members reasoned that they should focus on their own country, their own people before trying to save other people in other countries regardless of how much help they needed. When Gina states that it doesn't matter whose child the man she hurt killed, she expresses her belief that it shouldn't matter what people are suffering or what countries they belong to, they are still suffering people that should be helped by the people who can. I completely agree with Gina's belief. Naturally, there are people we each care about more than other people in this world. If we had to choose, we would save our own family and friends over those of someone else. The problem is, if we only save those that we love, other people will lose the people they love. It seems that the same natural human instinct applies to nations as a whole as well. The truth is, in a perfect world, every innocent person's life would have equal value. Everyone would be helped when they need it. The G8 should have recognized from the beginning that what Gina was saying was true. The people of poverty and third world countries needed more help than the prosperity of their own countries. Unfortunately, politics and competition get in the way of the world moving forward together. There seems to always have to be a nation on top and unfortunately a nation at the bottom.
Although I would consider Gina's behavior to be rude and slightly out of line the way she handled things and cornered the people that had to make the difficult decisions, I do believe she needed to do what she did in order to make a difference. There are people like Gina all throughout history. Life changing people that make a positive impact on the world with their revolutions. In the grand scheme of things, it makes sense that Gina be forced to leave the G8 summit because of her already low status and for security reasons, but the fact that she was seen as a threat for speaking her mind shows a lot about the corruption of politics. If i were in this situation, I would love to be able to say I would handle things the same way Gina did, but the truth is it takes a certain kind of person to be able to do that, and I am not that kind of person. Sadly, I am one of the people that relies on people like Gina to speak for all of those that feel the same way she does and actually take action tackling the issue at hand.
This film does a great job of expressing the issues of global poverty within an entertaining romantic comedy. I actually cannot believe I have never seen it before or heard of it. The film is extremely eye opening, educational and overall very well done.
As a future educator, I think that I went into this film from a little bit of a different perspective. Gina final line of the film really resonated with me because of my work with children and the work that I will be doing with them for the rest of my life. One of the things that we frequently do in my field is discuss and question our own personal teaching beliefs. One of mine is that I believe that all children have the ability to achieve personal greatness and that it is my job as their teacher to help them discover what or where that greatness is. In this regard, I agree with Gina’s pressing question, “Does it matter whose child?” All children regardless of where they are matter. The question then arises, “Can we care about all of the children?” I believe that as an idea (of saving and helping children in the world), most people would say yes to the question. Unfortunately, in the real world, I don’t know that that is truly possible. The sheer number of children in the world alone makes it difficult to achieve that as well as the issue of proximity to the problem.
I think that Gina’s behavior is refreshing in the movie. It provides a new perspective, or at least a stronger one, to the G8 Summit. Often times, I believe that politics gets bogged down in the technicalities of procedure that it fails to see problems on a larger scale. It is my belief that politicians frequently get too deep into an issue, trying to determine the end all be all solution that they forget what they are actually trying to accomplish. That is exactly what is portrayed in this film. I think that Gina’s behavior is exactly what should be present at all matters of this caliber. In order to adequately represent public opinion, opposing views must be in attendance so that there can be a better understanding of the issue at large. I would like to believe that I would react in the same way as Gina, and maybe I would, but I think that the only way to know that answer is to actually be placed in that situation.
The discussion of global poverty seems to work very well within the constructs of a romantic comedy. Perhaps the most complimenting scene for these two aspects of the whole film is that where Gina takes a shower and uses the only big towels in the room, to which Lawrence responds that it is perfectly fine. Here we see Lawrence being selfless for a romantic gain, but on a symbolic level, it says a lot about his character and his willingness to solve global poverty. I think that had the film not been a romantic comedy, it might not have worked so well because the topic of global poverty is so heavy.
Finally, I found the way the United States was portrayed to be quite refreshing and also quite accurate. The film really portrays the country as a little bit arrogant where its delegates to the G8 Summit had a solution and that was the way it was to be done. End of story. It also depicts Americans as a strong-headed force, which can be both a positive and a negative thing. Many times, I think that as a culture, we enter into problems with the assumption that our solution is that correct way and we can solve the problem with it. Many times, that is not really the case though because social phenomena tend to be much less black and white than they appear. Overall, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to others.
One of the aspects of the film "The Girl in the Cafe" which I found very interesting was that, despite its arguments for saving the lives of children in poverty, almost no children are ever shown on screen. From beginning to end, there is only one scene where children are visible: as Lawrence returns to the hotel after his final meeting with Gina, he sees kids around a school. I took this to be a visual representation of Lawrence's development throughout the film. Being a single, middle-aged man, children would not be very important in his own life. Because of this, he does not connect personally to the issue, and is therefore more willing to allow compromises and political power-plays to take top priority. As he spends more time with Gina, he slowly begins to understand the importance of the bill and his role in promoting it to the summit. However, he still has trouble finding a way to voice these concerns, due in part to his lack of personal connection. Eventually, when Gina asks him if it matters whose child is suffering, Lawrence finally is able to look past his own self and realize that although he personally has never had a child or had to care for one, he still has a responsibility to help protect all children in any way he can. It is at this moment in the film when Lawrence sees the school children on his way home and the film brings the message full circle. At this point, however, the summit has all but ended and Lawrence has missed his opportunity to make an immediate difference, reinforcing the ticking clock in these childrens' lives, and continuing the political roundabouts.
In a related thought, I also took this decision to exclude children from the film as a reflection of Lawrence's informational booklets. Gina comments that if the booklets included pictures of the starving children, politicians would be quicker to act. By limiting the film's shots of children, healthy or dying, the film more directly reflects the views of the politicians, in which the children in need are a distant, abstract notion which barely affects their lives.
I found the Gina's line “Does it matter whose child?” to be incredibly revealing and powerful. The part of the film that I found most interesting, and that we also addressed during the discussion, was the reason for Gina's imprisonment, which obviously relates to this. When it is revealed that she was incarcerated for hurting a man who had harmed a child, I am not sure why, but I found it to be pretty surprising, but at the same time it made a lot of sense and really tied the film together and answered a lot of questions. The unanswered question of why Gina was in prison lingered in the background throughout the entire movie. It actually really bothered me that we as an audience did not know. To, in a way, “get over it” I assumed that it was for something menial such as petty theft or perhaps it was drug use. However, when it is brought up at the end of the movie it only further develops Gina's character and explains her actions and motivation.
Throughout the movie I found it very frustrating that Gina insisted on confronting the chancellor, strictly because it was directly harming her relationship with Lawrence. Although the matter of protecting and saving children is obviously the most important aspect of this film, the idea of Lawrence and Gina falling in love seems to hold strong ground as well. From the first scene of the movie, glimpses from Lawrence's mundane life, the audience is already rooting for him. He is instantly quirky and loveable, and when he sits down the Gina in the cafe, I almost let out a sigh of relief-- hoping that this would somehow relieve some of the awkwardness I was already feeling 5 minutes into the film.
This interaction between Lawrence and Gina, the unaddressed tension, the misunderstanding, the unanswered questions-- this all escalates with the obvious tension and controversy the characters face at the G8 convention. And, in a way, the controversy at the G8, much like the tension between Lawrence and Gina, has some seemingly easy fixes that just aren't being put into use. For example, Gina finds it inexcusable that the delegates at the G8 don't just simply use their money to save the people in Africa in danger, however at the same I as a viewer found it confusing that Gina kept jeopardizing her relationship by questioning the chancellor.
Admitting this, I feel a little ashamed because what it comes down to is that I was rooting for Gina and Lawrence's relationship more that I was rooting for the chancellor and the G8 to aid the woman and children in Africa. What's more is that I didn't really have an “aha moment” until that last scene of the movie where it is revealed that Gina was in prison for defending a child, most likely (I feel) her own. To me, this justified her actions throughout the film, however looking back and criticizing my own analysis of the film, her actions were justified anyway. Even before the audience finds out how Gina's history affects her actions. It is only because I was so engulfed in the story and the characters that I didn't recognize this and in a way, that can be a dangerous way of thinking.
In the context of modern international political, social, and economic turmoil, “The Girl in the Café” assumes whole new meaning and value. Although the film dances around such themes as parental ownership, international cooperation, and human rights, I think the true question comes down to the idea of ownership. In other words, as citizens of a “first world” country at the front of international society, what should we own?
Throughout the film, that which plagued both the diplomats and Gina, though for drastically different reasons, was this simple question of what each nation had the duty and right to possess. Clearly, the politicians were much more focused on the material aspects of the question. They talked about the international economy, arguing that the richer their countries became, the easier it would be to pump money into poorer countries and this epidemic of extreme poverty. On the contrary, Gina saw the issue from the more humanitarian point of view. She believed that the representatives should own up to the fact that they all belong to the human family. Therefore, rather than busy themselves with superficial acts, they should be fighting to keep their international brothers and sisters from dying.
As the film progressed, it became clear that there was no clear cut answer to the issue. However, I tend to agree more with Gina in that direct action will be more successful than a global trickle-down policy. Unfortunately, I do think even Gina approached the issue from an improper standpoint. The issue was not about her, Lawrence, or the diplomats. It was not about the wife who had recently lost a child. Nor is it about you or me. It is about the wives and children starving and contracting disease because they do not have the spare change we forget about when it falls out of our pockets. It is about those who do not have the education necessary to get help them obtain even the humblest of jobs.
Why is it, when asked what they could do to solve the problem, the diplomats responded with point about their monetary situation? Or, when Gina was asked to leave the conference, she apologized and said she was only doing what she thought he wanted. Why were the recurring questions of the film what should we do, and what do we own? Should they not rather be what must we do, and what must we own up to?
The truth is, as the upcoming election approaches, we must ask ourselves these same questions. Do our morals and priorities tell us to help the rich, or the poor, or should we help all people? Like Gina, we must ask, “Does it matter whose child?” And hopefully, with self-reflection and hope, we can answer it is no one’s child. Maybe we will be able to transcend the human tendency to immediately appraise something’s or someone’s material worth. Only then will we be able to appreciate the intrinsic soul that makes that child human, one of us, and then we will help him no matter what the cost, just because we should.
In Gina’s last line of The Girl in the Café, she raises an important ethical question on the value of human life. When questioned by Lawrence about her story, Gina responds, “Does it matter whose child?” She is disputing the idea of a measure of human value. It is an important question to ask in the face of important decisions such as those made at the G8 summit regarding global aid.
There is no way to measure the value of a human life. No matter what factors are measured, you cannot objectively compare one life to another in a way that allows you to say that one is better or worse than another. As humans, we individually have ways of measuring the value of others to ourselves. I see a difference between measuring for ourselves versus measuring on a world scale. It would be a challenge to admit that my own family does not mean more to me than members of a family that I have no relation to nor do I know them. However, I also could not admit that I believe my own family deserves the life we lead any more than anyone else in the world.
We must be able to separate what it means to care for someone and what it means to value someone. They can be easily confused and lead to questioning as to whether we have as much of a responsibility to those whom we are not as physically close to. In terms of caring for, it is difficult to truly care for someone whom we have never met or have no ties to. However, valuing any human life is a universal responsibility. Gina does not contend that one’s own children are especially important. She simply recognizes the fact that even if they are not your children, they are someone’s children. They are an equally valuable human life.
When Gina asked, “Does it matter whose child?” at the end of the movie, I thought it was the perfect line to really tie in the romantic and political aspects of the movie, while even more importantly bringing out a very important ethical question which was brought up on Monday night: Why should someone’s proximity to you make them more valuable? I believe that this question has arisen due in majority to the fact that as a whole American’s can be characterized as quite selfish beings. We would rather put our money into something that we can reap some sort of benefit from, and while you may gain a sense of goodwill from donating to a poverty relief fund, there is nothing tangible to be seen from it. We live in a very materialistic world, and if we can’t “show off” the things we have or the things we’ve done, then we believe they simply aren’t worth doing. While I think selfishness is a major contributor to why proximity plays such a huge role in the value of others, I think another huge aspect of it is simply arrogance. Beside from the few commercials on T.V showing starving children, most people in America know very little about what is going on outside of the United States. Unless you go seeking the information, you may never know how truly in-need these countries are. And even when you do hear the facts, can a middle or upper class American really grasp the image of living in that way. This relates directly to when Gina suggested putting pictures into the fact report that is given to the people at the G8 conference. Without actually seeing these poor, starving people, there was no way that the leaders of the “top” nations could comprehend what was really going on in the third world countries. The thing is we have emotional ties to the things we can see. Just because we may not be able to see everyone in the world, that does not mean they are invisible. Someone, somewhere, has the same emotional ties to them as we do to the people close to us. Every life has value, and although you might not be directly connected, if you have the means to save their life, you should.
My first, most honest reaction to The Girl in the Café was this—why is Gina doing this? Does she realize she is being rude to Lawrence and the political leaders? Does she really think she will make a change? Is she aware that she may sound ignorant, annoying, and unimportant to people who are actually involved in these decisions—people familiar with the reality of these issues, these politics, these group decisions?
Upon taking a step back, however, I realized the true reasons for my surprise and the harsh reality of the ethical dilemmas in the film. I think, at the heart of The Girl in the Café, is a question of empathy and social deviance. How much empathy is appropriate? When do we have too little or too much? Moreover, at what point is it “allowed” to breach social norms and throw away conventional proprieties in order to address a question of empathy?
I realize that all this is a lot of questions and no answers. This is because I, myself, experienced a lot of questions and not many answers. It seems, although Gina did inspire some political leaders to take a stand, in the end, the systematic emotionally controlled decision won in the end. The system, and not the feelings, seems to win most battles in this day and age among our political systems. We strive for level-headedness, not emotiveness. We strive to control our empathetic reactions, lest we break down in tears every time we see an animal abuse commercial or read a sad book. There is a certain psychological benefit to being able to close our hearts and open our minds. But there is still the moral issue—when do we speak out? The truth of the matter is, Gina was a deviant. People like Gina are outliers in today’s society, they are not the norm. There’s something a little tragic about that—and unfortunate in the fact that I was automatically uncomfortable with Gina’s deviant emotional response in standing up when no one else would.
Countries communicate with one another instantaneously, extending the boundaries of globalization, with governments moving past economic interactions and introducing a social agenda as well. Yet it seems that governments are becoming more and more aggressive in their desire to address the needs of people who they don’t govern. The Girl in the Cafe reminded me that the phenomena of countries becoming involved with other countries is nothing new to society, it just looked different before. In the past, the global conquests of the Dutch, Spaniards, French and the English were validated by the desire to “help” the barbarians native to the lands they desired. In the name of religion, these governments sought to change the traditions of the invading regions and transform the people into Xerox copies of themselves. Purging the land of its resources and manipulating human labor was simply an added perk of the job. Now I don’t think today, the countries of the modern world are pursing the “White Man’s Burden” on the exact same path as our ancestors, but there is still nothing normal about a road made of gold bricks. When the plot got to the G8 Summit, it reminded me of this suspicion. There is something fishy about members of a group trying to make decisions for members of another group simply because they can. This is the entirety of my problem with the G8. Representatives of the countries these world leaders are examining and analyzing are not even present at this summit. Moreover, these countries are not given the opportunity to lend their expertise and advice. We can easily see why it wouldn’t be right to send an anorexic to teach a class about nutrition, because that is backwards. So excuse me if this seems obvious, but the summit itself is just as illogical. There is no connection between a handful of professional arguers and a child soldier in Angola, especially when they are not even from the same country and have no insight on the internal problems. From the surface, the G8 can gain a crude understanding of what is happening within a foreign country, but the reality of that summary is the same as trying to write a book in numbers; incredibly frustrating for the person who has to use that book for a class in school. Through all this rambling, I hope I clarify that I by no means belittle the work done at these meetings and those involved. This type of work is extremely taxing as these professionals try to solve almost insurmountable problems. However, my aim is to draw attention to a glitch in the software used for problem solving.
As a political science major, I found a number of questions posed in the film to be extremely relevant. The setting of the G8 is the perfect place to bring up these issues because its main purpose is to bring up important issues facing the world. Making it the background eliminates the need for a certain amount of exposition that would otherwise be necessary for Gina's ethical and political views to become so glaringly and jarringly obvious.
The central question that I took from the film, and one that I find especially relevant given the current political deadlock in Congress, is whether or not government (not just American) can make any sort of practical difference in the lives of the disadvantaged, especially when there is no immediate monetary incentive (such as in the case of dying children in Africa). The film doesn’t answer the question, which I thought was a good decision because it would have taken far longer than an hour and a half to address, but it does offer hope that the answer is yes. The film embodies the two different approaches to enacting the desired changes in its two main characters, Lawrence and Gina. Lawrence’s approach is one of someone who has spent a lot of time dealing with all of the bureaucracy that comes with civil service, patient and incremental, with the expectation and knowledge that everything he desires will not end up being made into law. Gina’s approach, on the other hand is one of a young newcomer to the business of politics, fast and unyielding, with an all or nothing mentality.
The film doesn’t take a side, but I definitely sympathized with Lawrence’s character and his approach more than Gina’s. As much as I agree with Gina’s moral stance on the universal worth of children, I do think she went about elaborating it in a way that did absolutely no good, and in fact even hurt the chances of what she wanted happening. The realist in me just cannot fathom how she ever thought making a big scene would increase the chances of the measures she supported being agreed upon. I felt bad for Lawrence because while he may not have been able to get all of the funding that his project necessitated, he probably would have at least been able to get a portion of what was necessary. Instead, because of Gina’s stunt, he was never given the opportunity to let the international political system do its job. Additionally, he gets punished for being in the company of someone who so clearly disregards the international political order. While Gina’s motives may have been pure, I do think it was her responsibility to see how her actions would realistically affect the situation. If she truly believed what she says she did, then it was her ethical obligation to do what would most probably lead to the best outcome (whether that meant sharing her view or holding her tongue). I think it was rather selfish of her to be so vocal about her views when it was clearly to the detriment of the greater cause. That is the greater lesson I took from the film, that there are times to buck the system and other times to abide by it. Gina bucked the system for the sake of bucking it, so she could state her opinion and not feel guilty about sitting back while something so important was being decided. Ultimately, this is what led to both her and Lawrence’s downfall.
The Girls In The Café
Lawrence was such and interesting character that I found myself often watching only him in most scenes. Bill Nighy did an outstanding job of embracing the awkward and painful essence of Lawrence. To start the film we see him completely involved in his work. He is walking from place to place with his papers in front of his face so he can barely see where he is going. We don’t actually get to see him interact with anybody until he engages in conversation with Gina. This is where the audience gets to fully understand just how inept and self-conscious Lawrence is. What I took away from this is that Lawrence’s life is completely work centered. Because of this he is poor at interacting with strangers, especially those of the opposite sex. He further shows us how work centered he is by not being able to go back out on a date until weeks later. We learn later that he has a noble job that might hold the power to save thousands of lives but I felt this job has robbed Lawrence of one of life’s most precious elements and that’s emotion. This is why Lawrence was attracted to Gina.
Gina is driven by her emotions and won’t let anything get in the way of showing her emotion. We see this when they are at the G8 convention. Most people would feel uncomfortable speaking up in such I high-powered organization. She barely knows these people yet she is courageous enough to speak out against what these people do as their careers. I believe how she went about it was inappropriate and rude but I believe that’s how she had to do it. She had to be bold to get a response from such statistical minded people. Everyone on the counsel, except the brits, seem to only care about their countries personal well-being. Especially the Americans who are portrayed by a young smug male and an emotionless redheaded female. The director made sure the audience disliked the Americans. Gina was emotionally attached, however which made her speech that much more powerful. If I were at the G8 meeting I would have easily backed Gina up. While I don’t think I could have mustered up the courage to be the first one to rebel, I definitely could have followed her after she made it aware.
I feel the biggest flaw in the movie was the movie’s oversimplification of everything. It’s easy to say lots of people are dying and we’re not doing anything about it. We are all wealthy countries we should help them. Here comes Gina saying let’s help them we should listen to her. In hindsight Gina really knows nothing about how world logistics works. These are these people’s careers. They all know the numbers and what makes most sense. Some driven woman isn’t going to make a two-minute speech that completely changes the ultimate decision. This is why I didn’t feel the global poverty worked well in the context of a romantic comedy.
I’ll admit, up Gina's last line, I really wasn’t crazy about her at all. She overshared about past relationships, couldn’t keep her trap closed when her words could have put the entire G8 summit into jeopardy, and apparently was a jailbird?! But when she said in a soft, broken tone, "Does it matter whose child?" I had a turn of heart. She knew all along what this movie made me realize: We owe to other people’s children what we owe to our own. It’s just a twist of fate that the child was born in Rwanda instead of Rhode Island. It could very easily have been me starving in Africa instead of living in a comfy home in Smalltown, USA. To quote Sir Paul McCartney, “We all know that people are the same wherever you go.” For example: Sasha and Malia Obama or Liza, Sam & Charlie Ryan are no more important than Africa’s children who die every 3 seconds. While I think it is important that we take care of our own children first, as if we don’t, no one else will, children all over the world in need should be an extremely close second. Parents in Africa absolutely value their children as much as parents in Europe and the United States value theirs. Possibly even more. In Europe and the US, I think for many children are almost an accessory. People have kids because all their friends from college are having kids. There’s so much cute stuff you can buy if you have a kid. Maybe you’ll have a son to carry on that small town quarterback legacy. Of course, I don’t mean everyone is like that! But I’ve definitely met more than a few. In Africa, you don’t have too much. You rely on your family 100%. Your kids will be your source of love, of laughter and of hope. They shouldn’t be a source of crippling grief. You should never see them die. As a Christian, I have seen through Jesus the value of a human life. He humbled himself to go through that immense torture and pain and humiliating death on the cross, and he would have done it for just me or for just you. That’s his idea of the value of a human life.
I’m of the opinion that politics have no place in helping the world’s children. The one and only role of a government is to protect its citizens. I think it’s our job to help the children of the world through charitable organizations and volunteer/missionary trips. As Margaret Mead has said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
As I had mentioned before, I’m not a big Gina fan. She and Lawrence both seemed immature, ignorant and careless throughout this film. Gina was highly inappropriate and rude at the G8 summit. There’s a reason people go through years and years of international relations training before even dreaming of going to a summit like that. It’s annoying and ridiculous, but you have to be very delicate in those situations. If the leaders in the summit acted like Gina, there would be no G8, and there would never be a hope of something getting done. I think she should be allowed to stay at the G8 summit, but I don’t think she should. She should have the decency to leave when she saw how she was disrupting everything and causing Lawrence (whom she loved enough to sleep with!!!) problems. In that situation, I would have realized that (most of) the leaders were doing their best to help and left them alone. I would probably have treated Gina with contempt. I would have thought of her, like they said, as a protestor let inside.
Of course, of course, of course, the USA is the bad guy. Again. Always. I know we’re supposed to watch this movie and feel like “Oh! How horrible we are! Oh goodness! I’m so ashamed to be American!” but the day I feel ashamed to be an American is the day you can shoot me right in between my blue eyes. The Brits have never really gotten over 1776. ;)
Gina’s behavior is very interesting to observe when considering everyone’s reactions to it. People considered it very rude, and perhaps it was, especially in the English culture. The thing is, her behavior was rude because it was a truth that the people at the G8 summit didn’t want to hear, not because she was trying to insult them or anything malicious like that. She was upset with their inaction and reacted accordingly, trying to shock them into that action she wanted and the people being deliberated over deserved. This was not received especially well, and it resulted in Gina getting kicked out of the summit and Lawrence losing his job. Still, it resulted in action actually occurring, or at least we assume so.
The thing is, I don’t think I would treat Gina too much differently than the rest of the people in the movie. I would agree with her that something needed to be done, but I think that I’m too much of a cynic (or realist) to think that a single person could do anything. I would simply brush her off as an idealist and not give it a second thought. This, I think, is why the world is in such a bad state: the practiced apathy that everyone exhibits when confronted with facts like this. Everything is broken down into statistics, only statistics. If we can move past this, start actually caring about people like Gina does, then improvement can happen. There are people out there, too, who do this. But, unfortunately, they are labeled as crazies and put into the margins. If we were to listen to some of these people, to give their messages credence, then perhaps action could be taken.
This was an excellent film that does bring in a lot of ethical questions. I particularly like Gina's final line in the film, "does it matter whose child." This is a question that we don't often ask ourselves, and if we did I think a lot of us would fight as hard as Gina did to have the children around the world helped. When you think about this question you think of how you see parents give sacrifice everything in their lives for their own children, but how many are unwilling to go to any other lengths for children that they will never see the face of. The closer something happens to us the more attached we feel towards it. The other day 20 some children died in a school shooting in Connecticut, and the reaction to it was huge, it received enormous amounts of media coverage and was a national tragedy. This many child soldiers will die in African countries every single day, but from Americans it will not get near the funding that the people in Connecticut will to deal. This has nothing to do with race or any of that, it is simply that we feel much more closely attached to those that are closer than us, when it happens in the United States there will be much more concern than if it were to happen outside the United States. It's human nature, even though we will never know either of the victims on a personal level, we feel closer to the American ones, even if they are fewer in number. Gina calls us to question this, should we show compassion to all? Her thoughts and actions seem to get through to Lawrence a bit, but there may have been other reasons that her voice was getting through to him. The thing we need to do it not think of the lives lost around the world as a number, but think of them all as if they were your own child.
Like most people, the last line Gina says "Does is matter whose Child? Since I am writing this blog post a tad bit later than anticipated, I was instantly reminded of The Third Man. Gina and Holly agree on the fact that it does not matter who is being harmed, but justice should be met for someone who takes the lives of something so innocent as a child.
This is very important because of the actions of Jerry Sandusky as well as the shootings in Newtown, CT. In two of our movies we watched characters go above and beyond to defend the live of the child.
Something I wanted to really point out about the topic is the retroactive perspectives here. In both the movies, at Penn State, and the Newtown Shootings, all our actions are forced to be retroactive. I do not know how you would prepare for things, but there has to be a better way at preventing things like this. Innocent people, especially children should never be the victim of hatred.
We need to learn how to be more proactive as a society.