The following post is a paper I recently wrote for my Christian Ethics course. Our assignment was to review one of three movies, Babel, Pan's Labyrinth or The Constant Gardner; looking at issues such as violence and social injustice. I got a good grade on this so I thought I would post it. I hope you enjoy...
No, there are no murders in Africa. Only regrettable deaths. And from those deaths we derive the benefits of civilization, benefits we can afford so easily... because those lives were bought so cheaply.
From the 2005 film, The Constant Gardener
The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the 2005 film The Constant Gardener. This reflection will be from the perspective of Christian ethics, particularly in regard to the issues of pursuing justice among the marginalized. First, I will give a description of the film's plot. This will be followed by an examination of the film's main character and any respective ethical decisions and/or paradigmatic shifts that may have occurred in the character's development as the film progressed. Finally, I will suggest that the development of the main character models a necessary shift in the praxis of those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus.
Justin Quayle, played by Ralph Fiennes, is a low-level British diplomat assigned to the Kenyan Embassy. His wife Tessa, played by Rachel Weisz, is an activist who volunteers her time in Kenya by helping a local doctor with his work among the poor and those suffering from HIV/AIDS. During the course of her volunteer work, Tessa accidentally learns that a large, multi-national pharmaceutical company is secretly testing a new tuberculosis drug on Kenyan HIV/AIDS patients. She learns that the drug testing has resulted in many deaths, but that this fact is being covered up by the British High Counsel as well as by officials in the Kenyan government. Her snooping and gathering of "evidence" ultimately results in her death, as well as that of the local doctor she is working with. The plot then shifts to Justin Quayle's need to learn the reason why his wife was so brutally murdered. We watch Quayle shift from a low-level, get the job done without any attention being brought to him diplomat to a radical activist on a mission to learn the truth and set things right. In the end, the truth comes out, but not before Justin Quayle is also murdered. The primary thesis of the film can be summed up by the quote at the beginning of this paper. When there is big money to be made, the big pharmaceutical companies are more than willing to sacrifice the lives of the marginalized of Africa.
We learn early in the movie that Justin and Tessa have completely different paradigms when it comes to getting involved with those on the margins. They had just lost their first child from birthing complications. In the same hospital room, a Kenyan baby is born and the mother dies. Tessa later learns that the mother was a victim of the drug testing. The family of the Kenyan baby is facing a 40 kilometer walk back to their village. Tessa asks Justin to stop and give this family a ride. Justin refuses to get involved and tells Tessa; "Be reasonable. There are millions of people, they all need help. It's what the agencies are here for." To this, Tessa replies; "Yeah, but these are three people that we can help." In this particular narrative, Justin's decision not to stop is driven by his belief that the situation is hopeless and that anything that could be done should by done by those who have come to Kenya for that reason. In addition, he does not want to put his wife under any more stress. We see that his character has been shaped by his loyalties to his own interests. (Stassen and Gushee 2003, 64)
Near the end of the film, after Tessa's death, we see that Justin has made a complete paradigm shift in regards to getting involved with individuals in the face of overwhelming odds. After flying to North Kenya on a UN plane, Justin is forced to run back to the plane, attempting to avoid death as the relief station he is visiting comes under attack by tribal bandits. As he boards the plane he lifts up a tribal child who had been running with him. The pilot refuses to let the child board, because the rules of engagement do not allow him to evacuate anyone but relief workers. Justin responds in complete disbelief and attempts to purchase passage for the child by bribing the pilot. The bribe is refused and the child is left behind. In this narrative we see that Justin has been "transformed" and is now more than willing to engage on an individual basis, even when there is overwhelming evidence that such engagement will not have a dramatic impact. Justin's response to the pilot is; "This is one we can help!" This shift can be attributed to the model that Tessa had been as she willingly put the interests of others above her own. In other words, Tessa had "discipled" Justin. (Stassen and Gushee 2003, 58)
Ultimately, we see that Justin, too, was willing to give his own life in the hopes that it would improve the lives of those on the margins. I believe this is a picture of, at a minimum, a shift in Justin's perceptions. (Stassen and Gushee 2003, 67) The more he investigated Tessa's activities, the more open he became to a deeper understanding of the truth. The more he understood the truth of the pharmaceutical company's activities, the more he was willing to exchange his life for the marginalized. It was a process, a journey, that happened as Justin opened his eyes to the plight of the marginalized.
Justin's openness to those at the margins was birthed at Tessa's funeral. When the guests had all left, Justin remained behind, standing over Tessa's grave. A young Kenyan boy limped up; the same boy Justin had refused a ride earlier in the movie. He had brought a card in honor of Tessa. He had crafted his card from a trash piece of cardboard. In this narrative, Justin came into true, open contact with the marginalized. This act of love from one of the marginalized resulted in Justin realizing his own oppression, his own captivity to the structures which were responsible for the oppression of the marginalized. It was at this point that Justin chose to deny himself and seek to "dismantle the very structures responsible for causing injustices along race, class, and gender lines, regardless of the attitudes bound to those structures." (De La Torre 2004, 16-17)
The film paints a clear picture of the contrasts between the privileged, the British and the big pharmaceutical companies, and the marginalized, the Africans. The privileged are always shown in settings that signify their "worth." They drive expensive vehicles. They live in large houses. They attend parties at private clubs. In one scene, a group of the privileged is playing golf on a well manicured golf course. As the scene ends, the camera pans to reveal a train track, which is a symbolic dividing line between the world of privilege and the world of the marginalized. As the camera continues to pan, the scene evolves into one of chaos and mass humanity. The marginalized are also always shown in settings that signify their "worth." Scenes of shanties, rubbish, raw sewage, dilapidated vehicles, bicycles and bare feet.
The tone of the dialogue among the privileged reveals the presence of teleological ethics, or an attitude of the ends justifies the means. (Stassen and Gushee 2003, 119) This is seen in statements like, "disposable drugs for disposable patients;" and, "stop bleeding for bloody Africa, show some loyalty;" and "No, there are no murders in Africa. Only regrettable deaths. And from those deaths we derive the benefits of civilization, benefits we can afford so easily... because those lives were bought so cheaply." It is this ethic that allows the priviliged to justify the deaths of Africans. It is this ethic that allows the priviliged to justify the violent deaths of Tessa, the doctor and Justin. It is this ethic that Justin slowly realizes his own complicity with. It is this ethic that Justin ultimately rejects in his pursuit of justice for the marginalized. It is this ethic that those of us who claim to follow Jesus must also reject.
Justin Quayle represents me. He represents you. He represents those of us who follow Jesus but are trapped by our desires for saftey and security. He represents those of us who follow Jesus but are submerged in the pursuit of our own interests and desires. He represents those of us who follow Jesus but are controlled by fear or our loyalty to the system. Deep within our soul we know that something is missing. We know that we have been called to make a difference, to set things right, to be part of the answer. We read the teachings of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount, but have been told that these teachings are not really attainable; we have been told that they are just high ideals. (Stassen and Gushee 2003, 132) This leaves us paralyzed. We see the issues; poverty, violence, war, hunger, sickness, human traficking, and so much more. We are overwhelmed by the issues, so much so that we cannot see the hope in helping just one, so we choose to turn a blind eye, or we choose to leave the log in our own eye. We also live isolated lives. We have never really experienced true contact with those on the margins because our fears or desires for comfort keep us from them. So, we go through life believing that this is just the way it is.
Each of us, however, has a Tessa, an example we can follow. Each of us knows someone who has given their life for the sake of the others and thus, for the sake of the Kingdom. It may be a pastor or a missionary. It may be our spouse or a parent or a child. It may be a historical hero or a friend or even a friend of a friend. Each of us also has the example of Jesus, who in his call to follow him invites us to die to our old way of life and, by faith, allow him to live a new life in and through us. This new life is one in which we see our complicity with the plight of the marginalized. This new life is one in which we recognize the presence of Imago Dei in the faces and lives of all peoples, but especially the marginalized. This new life is eternal life, abundant and free.
Jesus has called us to follow him. He has sent us, as he was sent. In his death, he modeled the life we are to live, for truly there is no greater love than to give one's life for our friends. (John 15:13) So, we are left with the question, who are our friends? For Tessa and Justin it was the Africans, those on the margins. Would it be any different for us?
Works Cited
De La Torre, Miguel A. Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004.
Stassen, Glen H., and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Recent Comments