“We must reform health care in America. We must build a modern, innovative health care system that give patients more options and fewer orders” – George W. Bush in a speech to the Medical College of Wisconsin, February 11^th, 2002

The issue of public healthcare is a sensitive one, and also one that has gained a lot of attention lately. It is one that most can relate to, and is bound to spark emotional rhetoric or personal accounts based on the reactionary emotions generated by its mention. In John Q., emotions are taken to an extreme, similar to In The Bedroom.  Like that film, it deals with the natural instinct that parents have to protect, avenge, or save their children.  In both cases, the parents are pushed to the emotional limit by extenuating circumstances; The difference with John Q, is that the end result is weighted down by few instances of heavy-handed dialogue and overly done situations.  This, along with the characters acting inconsistently or being underdeveloped and the screenplay stumbling and fumbling to get to its conclusion almost make this one too much to handle.  But the film is saved by an underlying message that rings true to most people, but has somehow flown slightly under the radar of public discontent for too long.  The film has a heart, and a passion, about the issue of public healthcare, and the system and hoops that one must seemingly jump through to get something that should be natural instinct.  The Hippocratic oath states “I will use regimens for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from what is to their harm or injustice I will keep them” but something has gotten clouded in the mix, and now it’s not a matter of values, but a matter of value (as the film artfully states). 

The movie begins with a car accident involving a carelessly inattentive female, who ultimately ends up in a nasty accident with two semis which at the time is seemingly unrelated .  Then we are introduced to John Archibald, a lower middle class steel worker, and his family, a waitressing wife, and a son with dreams of being a bodybuilder.  We are shown the levels of frustration that their life has reached, John’s car is repossessed, his hours are cut at work, his application for a second job, yet his love and religious faith endures  through it all.  When his son collapses during a baseball game, he is taken to the hospital, where it’s discovered (by a coolly arrogant cardiologist) that he has an enlarged heart.  This medical condition is not covered under John’s medical insurance, and will cost in excess of a quarter of a million dollars.  The hospital’s chillingly inhuman administrator informs the Archibald’s that they will have to pay on a cash basis, for their son to be cared for, and possibly operated on.  John does everything possible, but cannot quite raise the money, and when faced with the prospect of having his son released from care, and dying, goes to the extreme measure of commandeering the emergency room at gunpoint.  His hostages are an all too conveniently eclectic cross section of society.  The heart doctor, another doctor, two interns (one who is in her first day on the job) a man and his pregnant wife, a Hispanic woman with her crying baby, a rent-a-cop security guard who couldn’t protect a glass of water and a smarmy gigolo type, and his seemingly bimbo girlfriend and a wisecracking Eddie Griffin, along mainly for comic relief apparently; they all become the cast of characters who will no doubt interact, react, and maybe even bond together at some point.  This is one of the movies acts of convenience that may be possible, but is a bit too convenient for even the most extreme realistic thinker.  From here, the movie seems to stumble a bit in knowing where to go, and what to do with its setup.  Adding in the added aspect of the media exploitation was a bonus that kept things interesting, and providing more commentary on our thirst for information and bad news.  The anchorman, hungry for the story, of course feeds it, and his own ego continuously, which at least progresses things, and also shows another sad side of this information hungry society.  While this is nicely balanced, it too becomes a bit excessive at times, and frighteningly believable in others.  The overall story is slightly hokey, and convenience reliant, but it can’t ruin the power and emotion of the message.  The inevitable situations occur, but are also realistic in occurrence.  The situations are those, which are dramatic, and may seem cinematic in development and execution, but are actually very true to form of events that occur and exist in our world today.  The only thing that differs is the frequency and the visibility.  It is highly believable that the events of this movie could happen, based on its factual foundation and the way the situations are presented.   The frustration and frailty of the healthcare system, combined with the media exploitation, both taken to absurd, but believable extremes.  It stumbles slightly when it tries to touch isolate, or overemphasize specific human emotions 

Once the hostage situation begins, things lag into a series of emotional manipulation, one liners (from Robert Duvall, doing his best to keep things from getting out of control, both situationally, and cinematically), and over reactionary facial expressions (most coming from Ray Liotta, wasted yet again as he was in Hannibal).  The performances from Washington and DuVall are naturally effective, but the strong supporting cast falters at times, falling into the expected roles (even Mulholland Drive’s Harring isn’t given much to do but be a brainless blonde, and of course, exact revenge on her abusive boyfriend).  Had the screenplay and direction been eased up just a bit, this really could have been a memorable movie.  As it is, they are all put into roles, and do just as expected, which isn’t bad, but isn’t as good as it could have been.  

Ultimately, John Q is an acceptable piece of commentary on frustration with “the system” and the lengths that love will drive us to.  Will this film drive all desperate uninsured people to these extreme measures, its doubtful?  Will it open the eyes of blind and ignorant to this glaring social problem? Possibly.  Will it touch and move you, more than likely.  But the intentions and delivery are enough to make its point and give us an entertaining journey.  Movies can not only be representations and reflections of real life, but also can be the escapist embodiments of what we wish and dream we could do, if circumstances were different.  In our minds, we all dream of doing whatever we can to change, what we seemingly cannot, but for whatever reason (most of the them being legal) we do not, and just talk about it.  We leave it to the cinema to take us into this alternate universe of “what if’s”.  The plausibility may come into question, but this is the movie’s, they aren’t always made to be exact, or completely realistic, instead an alternate universe where reality and fantasy can meet, shake hands, and for two hours, become a part of our lives.  Part of the magic of the movies is that allows living vicariously through its characters for 2 hours.  They do the things we wish or dream, when faced with similar circumstances.  We’ve all been run through the system, been told to fill out paperwork, only to find out it’s the wrong form, been told to stand in a line, only to find out it’s the wrong one, been told that we have insurance coverage, only to find out its limitations, when the circumstance arises.  Cassavettes taps into this vein tactfully, and successfully, failing only when he goes one step farther than he needs to, to elicit sympathy or emotion.  A little bit softer of a touch, and he would have nailed this movie, but as it is, it stands as a socially relevant commentary with a heart, that will hopefully be a wakeup call to America, the HMO’s, and the government to act, before we react like John Q. does. ($$$ out of $$$$$)

Agree? Disagree, Questions? Comments?

Tell Me Here