Keith Watanabe * NET 2.0

Had a chance to see this movie. I was skeptical that it would fall into some action drama, but it was sensible to avoid that pitfall. Actually, I found the movie to be exceptionally cathartic, albeit wishful in thinking. The story is about Denzel Washington, playing John Q, a blue collar factory worker who's son collapses on the field of a baseball game. Up until that point, John was facing economic problems rising during that period (which was around the election time or post election period). Many jobs were being shipped to Mexico and plants were being closed in the states as lines of employees would fight for a single, low pay position. In the midst of all that, John finds out his insurance doesn't cover an open heart transplant operation, leading John to do whatever it takes to raise enough funds. Despite that, the bureaucracy of the hospital system pushes his back against the wall where he explodes and takes the hospital hostage. The show contains a lot of middle class, blue collar (and even white collar) anger that can be found post-Clinton period. Job losses, poor healthcare, bureaucratic unfriendly systems. Although the main issue seems to be centered around the nation's problematic healthcare system, the bigger issue is a socio-political one. It goes back to my saying that one of the nation's greatest enemies is the bureaucracy that's internally destroying the country. You had a sense of Kafka's bureaucracy with John (and others) attempting to cipher through millions of forms, only to find out that he misfiled something. The constant shuffling of his situation which prevents the most common sense thing from occurring, which is getting his son treatment, is ignored as the system turns its ugly head on him. What's great about the story is that despite being angry, it really doesn't attempt to villainize individuals. In fact, it brings to light their own dilemma which adds dimensions to their character. We feel angry towards them only because there isn't anyone else we can get proper answers from. Hence, why John assaults the doctor (who in reality is probably a good person as he does save lives). It's obviously the wrong answer from an ethical viewpoint, but John is not an immoral person. Rather he represents Everyman in becoming the embodiment of what we want to and ought to do. For instance, John does not inhumanely deny the patients their rights to medical care, but actually speeds up the process of the waiting line. His connection with the others in the WR lead to their support of his actions (such as the black guy whose fingers are injured to even sacrifice himself for a split second for John). The movie also tries to problematize the cops in a role that polarizes them against John but at the same time underscore their plight in the hostage situation. For the chief officer involved, he's examining this from an exceptionally selfish viewpoint of a PR disaster, especially as the crowd begins to favor John. As that occurs, we begin seeing Frank Grimes, a hardboiled officer, even sympathizing with John's case (towards the end where the injured man briefly shows his face and Grimes gives a slight chuckle). This shift demonstrates that the author does not intend to assault the police for doing their job. Instead, the real assault is against this bureaucratic system. The legal loopholes mentioned in detail by the young doctor (while debatable) shows that middle men are making money off what ought to be a free system. The entire thing struck home for me as my father, who is in a nursing home now, although receiving care, doesn't receive the benefit of a proper, affordable help system from the government. When you look at other first world nations and compare ours in terms of healthcare, we're extraordinarily far behind. The issue of healthcare is an extremely sensitive one because money is heavily involved. Should it be free payed by our tax dollars? If it exists and we need a better system should we raise taxes? The movie brings to light these issues towards the end with the various talk shows discussing the issue. But again the real problem is the giant farce of a system in play. I think it's hard for other countries to relate to this problem because it's quite US-centric. Still it's great seeing a movie highlight a real social issue and attempt to address it. The thing I have to applaud is Denzel Washington. He has a blue collar type of sensibility that you can get behind. His words are that of a simple man, confused by a system that has confounded help with money. You really want to root for him and wish that others had enough guts to stand up and put a gun to some doctor or bureaucrat's head to order them to provide us with our basic needs. Healthcare ought to be something provided by the government to the citizens of the nation, especially in a nation like the US. As citizens, we are what build this nation. Without basic support from what our tax dollar pays, we can't function properly. Our government has constantly failed to improve our lives, instead focusing on individual politicians' behind-the-scenes funded schemes to help their special interest rather than the interest of the nation.