Talk:The Constant Gardener

the film?

In the credits, there was something like ‘thanks to all that lived and died giving a damn – John Le Carré’ but they rolled by too quickly. Does anyone have the full transcript? Cheers. – Kaihsu 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO

YVETTE PIERPAOLI

AND ALL OTHER AID WORKERS

WHO LIVED AND DIED GIVING A DAMN

NOBODY IN THIS STORY, AND NO OUTFIT OR CORPORATION,

THANK GOD, IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL PERSON OR OUTFIT IN THE

REAL WORLD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS, AS MY JOURNEY THROUGH THE

PHARMACEUTICAL JUNGLE PROGRESSED, I CAME TO REALIZE THAT, BY

COMPARISON WITH THE REALITY, MY STORY WAS AS TAME AS A HOLIDAY POSTCARD.

JOHN LE CARRE

cheers, friend --Haris 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This really, really needs to be expanded upon. I won't be doing anyediting myself, but trust me, the premise of this movie is beyond absurd and naive.

This page is a good source for a rebuttal for the absurdity planted in this movie.

http://www.fakes.net/constantgardener.htm

Anyone interested in expanding this article should take a quick look at that.

Juan

Also: I recall novel has different ending and letter at funeral is not included.

I would recommend this film to everyone. I think its sad that the above writer is naive enough to think that this movie is so far fetched. The plot and story is fictional yes, but the reality of the power pharmaceutical companies have and the degree to which people in third world countries are exploited is a real truth, and a sad one. I don't think you should be calling this movie 'beyond absurd and naive' until you've worked in Africa, and have seen the reality of what damage Western Corporations wield. With that said, I think this movie is worth seeing as it can generate thought and discussion around many important issues facing our world today.

K

I think the point the writer is making in the web page is that the movie's profiteering plot defeats itself in any semblence of current reality. Getting a cheap drug trial or circumventing patient consent makes sense for the villain in a movie. Purposely doing that in order to force a toxic drug onto the market makes no sense. Furthermore, the point was that there are actual tragedies and issues to deal with, the movie need not have exaggerated and sensationalized a plot.SE

I believe that this article is in violation of the NPOV policy in its adjective use and presentation of point-counterpoint. I think it should objectively put forth the content of the movie and not present the criticism of the film's plot in such a favorable light. "But it must be noted..." and all that follows, in the final section, is written in a very biased manner; "obvious", for example. I already removed the final sentence, which, in the article's own voice, called the plot "exagerated" (sic). I think this article needs serious work from somebody who knows the controversy about the movie and isn't vested either way. - Windupcanary

I think the plot critique should stay since the whole movie is a POV about a very controversial topic and lots of other articles deal with this by having a short criticism section. When that was attempted here people immediately argued vehemently that anyone who thinks the plot is naive is naive, pharmaceutical companies are evil et cetera. But I agree that the running point/counter point is a bit much. Sandwich Eater 04:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

@Juan,

I read the first part of the review where they were talking about the premises, their main objection seems to be that they do not believe the FDA would just "accept" the test results. Actually THEY DO. Simply put they don't have the time and money to do the tests themselves, what happens is that the FDA has guidelines for testing, but the tests themselves are being performed by the drug companies and then submitted. So falsifying this information is possible quite easily.

In Canada there is NO testing done whatsoever, they have absolutely no resources, so in the end they rely on the FDA approval to large parts.

When it comes to Africa: Well, considering the political situation you could probably sell a drug there with enormous side effects because what are the chances that they are being stopped from selling it? While they do this they can "hone" it and make it less volatile and then introduce is into the Western markets.

Simply put: The premise of the movie is by far not as far fetched as it may seem.

There is no current system in which the plot is not open to the criticism. The Nazis tested drugs on POWs and concentration camp victims I suppose. But without some sort of dictatorial bad guys around, there is no way you would systematically test and refine drugs at toxic levels on humans in the current international community. The counter-critcism mentions Trovan and that is retained in the section. Even that event was pretty well documented as a crooked principal investigator as opposed to a massive conspiracy aided by a western government or british aristocrat. Trovan was recalled and the financial damage was massive. The lawsuits and financial impact of encountered side effects in clinical trils are far too enormous to make this plot realistic, or so the critics have said (I tend to agree). But the wikipedia policy is a neutral POV, only restating work from other sources. Other sources document this criticism and counter criticism - the section is very well balanced IMHO.Sandwich Eater 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I just watched this film for the first time and had a strong emotional reaction to it. My reaction was something like a Republican conservative would think from watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheight 911. The tone of this article seems to carry the same emotional weight. Although I agree with its tenets, I feel that a Wikipedia article should not speak emotionally, but speak with calm logic and stick to the facts. More references should be cited. More examples of both good and bad actions from drug companies should be included, or referenced -- maybe there are already other Wikipedia articles on these that may be "related". I feel this page should be edited so that it has a neutral tone and attempts to discuss from more than just the perspective of drug company defense.

(Sblument 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

I'm a nooblet trying to re-edit the plot summary, and I'm having trouble with the neutrality aspect. What, exactly, is supposed to be neutral? The book is supposed to be an attack on pharma companies, and the plot reflects that. How can an editor make the plot summary 'neutral'?

-Delphi

I think the controversy section includes 3 examples of organizations spending a lot on developing nation issues and 1 example of an act of fraud. There aren't that many well documented acts of fraud that could be added, but I think that there are a couple. Rather than calling the neutrality into question I would just make a call for a couple more examples of the industry behaving badly. But I think the obvious point here, and the point the critics are making is that the plot is unrealistic. The criticism section really just said "some critics say the plot is unrealistic" then people went nuts and cited a bunch of actual good stuff pharmas do and the section grew. Then the anti-pharma types came up with the Pfizer in Nigeria example as something gone awry. I think overall this is a good example of wiki in action - both POVs are represented and there are a lot of references. But I do recall hearing a stoy on NPR recently about an anti-infective with a fraudulent study wherein the agency did not ask that the study be repeated and not it appears to have some sort of idiosyncratic toxicity. I will see if I can find a reasonable secondary source to include that example. Sandwich Eater 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulled "Criticism" section

Totally unsourced and mostly rambled on about the film, while this article is about the book. POV and unsourced comments about the book aren't needed. --MattShepherd 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This editor is POV anti-pharma. Sandwich Eater 02:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

?? No, I'm pro-keeping-book-critcism-in-book-reviews-and-leaving-film-criticism-out. Reverting. Please assume good faith and follow Wikipedia policies on using reputable sources and including only relevant material. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia policies before attempting to "contribute," but thanks for your interest. --MattShepherd 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you delete all but the line about the film's supporters pointing out the Trovan issue? You are POV anti-pharma. The *plot* criticism is quite clear. Sandwich Eater 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From RFC

Hi all, just happened to see this listed at RFC. I've actually seen neither the movie nor the book so maybe coming at this with a fresh pair of eyes will be helpful. I take it from the history that the following paragraph is what's at issue:

Critics contend that both the movie and book failed to use the opportunity to level realistic and needed criticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the plight of Africa. Instead, they argue, both mediums created an unrealistic, naive and almost laughable plot typical of many in the paranoid thriller genre but less entertaining or believable than the best of them 1. Equally adamant, the films supporters point out tragic corruption such as that depicted in a Washington Post article from December 2000 2, wherein a clinical trial conducted by Pfizer in Nigeria in 1996 allegedly used children to test Trovan, which had been proven efficacious in adults but not in children. In turn, critics of the movie point out that a company still has no profit motive in purposely developing a dangerous drug, particularly in light of the lawsuits that would result in the West. Other critics point to pro-Third World measures that pharmaceutical companies have enacted, such as "Merck's Gift," wherein billions of free drugs were donated to cure River Blindness in Africa 3, or Pfizer's gift of free/discounted fluconazole and other drugs in AIDS-ravaged South Africa 4, or GSK's development of a treatment for chloroquine-resistant malaria, despite the lack of profit potential 5. Sonia Shah, a very vocal critic of the drug industry and an investigative reporter describes a more realistic portrait of the ethical dilemmas facing the industry and the developing world, as published in The Nation. 6

Here are my thoughts. In general the language is overly hyperbolic, contains scare words, opinion words and weasel words. Additionally, many of the sources do not support the points that are being made. The first link goes to a blog, which aren't considered reliable sources as a general rule. The Washington Post article mentions nothing about the Constant Gardener and so I'm not sure how it's useful to mention in this article (perhaps in Pfizer or Trovafloxacin). It seems to me to be much more verbiage critical of this drug than critical of the movie/book itself (for which there are no sources provided). It references vague "critics" but does not adequately cite any such critics. I'm not saying there can't be criticism included in the article, naturally there can be. But it has to be presented properly. As it stands this text doesn't meet WP's editorial standards. — ripley/talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just "See film page for more information" and link the reader there.Sandwich Eater 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

tagged for verification

article cites no sources... tagged for failing WP:V.--Isotope23 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The article seems a fair appreciation of the film now, and refering people to the discussion page at the start of the article is a good way to lead people into the complex issues the film raises. A good compromise. The discussion page has certainly helped me understand why the article is now so short! Ixobel.

Criticism & Controversy

I removed this: "Critics contend that both the movie and book could have been used as platforms from which to criticize the pharmaceutical industry and how some of its practices impact Africa. "

Remove POV tag

The tags are not necessary as the article looks now. And by the way, this is a fictional novel. The main article on the subject is now about the film. If yoo want to debate the issue and use the POV tags it should be done on the film article. MaxPont 11:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

origin of the title?

is the title part of some well-known quote? it sounds like it should be, but i am unfamiliar with it if so. (you know, something like "the constant gardener turns his compost pile")

Film adaptation

I changed the title of the adaptation section to simply "Film Adaptation" because it only discusses that one version. Having "Film, TV, and theatical adaptations" in there seemed unnecessary seeing as how they didn't exist. 64.90.217.245 22:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned in Kenya

I've heard the film is banned in Kenya. If this is true, perhaps it should be mentioned -- Chris Fletcher (August 2007).

Based on Yvette Pierpaoli

I'm removing "According to the IMDB, Tessa was based on Yvette Pierpaoli, famous social activist and charity worker killed in 1999," because the book was finished by 2000, and in the Author's Note Le Carre wrote "With one exception nobody in this story, and no outfit or corporation, thank God, is based on an actual person or outfit in the real world..." and went on to say that the one exception is "the great and good Wolfgang of the Oasis Lodge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.69.185 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I was going to put the beginning of the article but I compared it to what John Le Carré said and found out that it is not certain if it is based on reality or not. You have to explain it or change the article. One of the reasons I don't use Wikipedia. --Justana (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed the line regarding the movie being "a wholesale ripoff of The Fugitive" as it isn't consistent with a neutral article format, nor was it in the context of any quote or source. Opinions are for the talk page.
- 99.42.92.7 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)