Talk:The Constant Gardener (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Too Much Plot?
It might be overlong, but isn't there a way to just bulk up the other sections, instead of deleting the plot section? I actually read it and realized several things about the movie, that I didn't realize before, it seems fine just the way it is. Browncoat101 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Overlong Plot
Hey, I always thought the plot section was for a synopsis of the film and NOT a blow-by-blow account of the entire film.

Too much PR for Rx companies?
I suppose under a heading of "Criticism" and "Controversy," this could be a relative complaint, but I wonder if the chain-listing of three different "pro-Third-World" programs near the end are necessary.

At the same time, I don't feel like slighting any one particular company that could be considered a "target" of the film/book ... maybe I need a closer reading of the balance rules, but it seems like a gray area. I may end up adding to this article later, perhaps to clarify the book's own "criticism" of the pharm industry to balance out the "criticism" of the work.


 * I respect your concern. Personally I think it is well balanced.  There are 3 diverse examples of Rx companies supporting causes in Africa (where the story takes place) balanced against one example of abuse in Africa.  I can't think of another documented abuse that can be easily cited for encyclopedic perspective.  The debate that shaped this bit of text raged back and forth between rabidly anti-industry types and anti-film pro industry people.  I think the content that popped out is a fairly well balanced piece that captures the controversy nicely without taking sides.  Hard to find a balanced argument like it elsewhere on the web, a tribute to wikipedia in that sense.  Sandwich Eater 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a reference to Sonia Shah's article in The Nation to provide more balance, as she is a fairly vocal critic of the industry. I still note that she does not provide a very concrete example of misdoings in the article, just "In one inquiry, out of thirty-three subjects enrolled in an experiment trial in Thailand, all of whom had signed forms stating their informed consent, thirty were found to be dangerously misinformed. The experimental HIV vaccine they were about to receive had no known protective value, but, according to the subjects, it would, in fact, protect them from the deadly virus. " So, as usual, you have some case, in thailand, used as a horrific example but with no reference as to which company or which vaccine.  Maybe you have to buy her book to get the factual references in hand.  I suspect that she leaves out details to avoid liability, because the facts have some ambiguity, because there are two sides to the story, and shades of gray.  No investigative jouranlist would leave the wrongdoers un-named if the facts were clear.  This is preceisely what the critics point out could be better about the movie.  It is too stark, clean cut, and that makes it unrealistic and arguably boring.  Sandwich Eater 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted part of "criticism" section.
I don't think the opinions of "Johnny Web and Tuna" constitute a reliable source of criticism. Also removed some thoroughly unsourced material. The Nation and the Washington Post I can buy as reliable sources of criticism and information re. the subject of the movie, but unsourced material and... uh... the word of somebody who calls himself "Tuna" isn't exactly rock-solid reliable. --MattShepherd 01:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, just as sourceable as Sonia Shah. You made the criticism section pretty biased towards anti-pharma POV. It should be balanced. Also, the pharma philanthropic efforts in the developing world are easily sourced.Sandwich Eater 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No... Soniah Shah was published in a reputable print source. If you're interested in finding legitimate, printed, criticism of the movie, please by all means include it. But the blog entry of somebody called "Tuna" doesn't carry the same weight as The Nation. I'm sorry if you disagree. I'm sure there are valid criticisms of the film along the lines you're mentioning, but your personal belief that pharamaceutical companies are charitably inclined towards Africa isn't (a) direct criticism of the film itself, which is what the "criticism" section of a film article should include, or (b) verifiable, at least except in the words of "Johnny Web and Tuna"... see above for "reputable source" argument. --MattShepherd 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, after re-reading, the section should be scrapped. "Johnny Web and Tuna" (is that you, Sandwich Eater? See the problems you run into with non-notable anonymous Web-based "reviewers"? I have no way of knowing if "Sandwich Eater" or "Pfizer Employee 1011" or "Charlie Manson" are the reviewers, here) are hardly reliable, and the rest of the section is tangential talk about pharma and the Third World, but doesn't actually criticise the movie, which one would think a criticism section in a movie article should do. --MattShepherd 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am not the critic and the criticism is of the *plot* as being unrealistic and laughable. You have confirmed tht the source is verifiable.  I can look for additional sources but the verifiable fact remains that a lot of people have written about the unrealistic nature of the plot.  Sandwich Eater 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any criticisms of the plot or ridicule of the insinuations that western pharmacy companies are trying to poison Africans72.195.158.95 03:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)M. Reason


 * "M. Reason" I don't think there are any criticisms of the plot's accusations of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, and rightly so. Do you really think the plot is that far off from reality? If so, do better research before making comments. One easy case in point: Just this year (late May to be more precise) the BBC reported that Nigerian officials were suing one of the biggest names in the Pharm industry (Pfizer) for illegally testing drugs on unwitting Nigerians. Move away from attacking the argument that drug companies are "poisoning" Africans (or anyone else) simply out of some sadistic impulse. Better questions to ask are: What can be gained (economically of course) from testing new drugs illegally? Why would it benefit drug companies to target people from so-called "third world" countries? Why are mainstream news channels failing to cover the lawsuits? And why are multi-billion dollar companies such as Pfizer allowed to get away with this sort of activity? Pay attention to the complexities of the issue. M. Rodrigue

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. &mdash; ripley/talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've pruned it down significantly (as well as at the related article), to the main assertion and a request for a citation. I'll be happy to try to help flesh this out properly. &mdash; ripley/talk 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Ripley - I appreciate the neutral POV since you haven't seen the material but the Trovan issue is relevant becuase it is an example supporting the realism of the plot and the other examples show the lack of realism of the plot. I also added a reference to a Boston Globe article that wasn't as pointed but was similar in tone to bolster the blog.  The obvious annoyance with many people watching the movie or reading the book is the lack of realism.  Of course that is a POV but it was argued back and forth with a balanced point/counter-point and is in a separate section for criticism.  Sandwich Eater 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've started building a new criticism section. The current one is inadequate for all the reasons I've outlined. I'm glad to work with you to build in aspects of other criticisms related to this drug, but please don't simply revert back to the old, flawed version. Edit warring won't get us to a better product. Can you point me to somewhere where the film is criticized for not speaking about this drug? &mdash; ripley/talk 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You've already verified that the criticism is verifiable and the original critique grew out of the input of several wikipedians. I don't think it right to delete everything and start over. The edits went like this:

Some critics feel the movie and book have an unrealistic plot- references --->It is too realistic blah blah blah, eventual addition of Trovan incident as a verifiable incidence OK, but the critics would still content it is factually innacurate and that was just one corrupt MD in Nigeria here are 3 massively expensive things the industry has done, reference, reference, reference

So the whole thing grew out of a balanced discussion with a point/counter-point. And it doesn't make sense to delete these verifiable facts. Sandwich Eater 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are certain criticisms that are verifiable. The criticism that the movie didn't tackle the issues surrounding this specific drug has so far not been proven. That's what I'm asking of you. If you want to say that people were critical of this movie because it didn't address this drug, then you need to provide a source for it. Your preferred language is so flawed that there's nothing else for it but to start over. Please provide a source for what you're seeking to add, per Wikipedia's policies. I haven't deleted anything that's supported by a source that's relevant to this article. &mdash; ripley/talk 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I moved this information to a new section entitled "Background of the Criticism" so that an uninformed reader might see both why some people ardently support the film's alleged realism and why others do not. The Trovan issue supports the *film* not the critics.  It is there to provide more balance for the folks who thought inclusion of all the criticism of the plot was too POV.  There are a lot of people out there who believe the conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry hook line and sinker, and they are adamant that this movie is realistic.  I do not share their POV, I only include Trovan for the sake of neutrality.Sandwich Eater 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the "background of criticism" section you added is the same inadequate information. You say that critics of the movie have said all sorts of things but they're not backed up by sourcing. Who? What critics have said these things? You've provided articles that are critical of certain phenomena, but you've not provided sources saying critics of the movie have mentioned these same phenomena in their criticism. &mdash; ripley/talk 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's take it line by line. Supporters of the plot of the movie arguing that it is realistic point out tragic corruption such as that depicted in a Washington Post article from December 2000 [4], wherein a clinical trial conducted by a corrupt MD in Pfizer's name in Nigeria in 1996 allegedly used children to test Trovan, which had been proven efficacious in adults but not in children.  Can you provide a source where someone has said the movie is realistic by pointing out corruption such as what is outlined in this Post article? (Or anything else -- we could use another example if we had a source.) &mdash; ripley/talk 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ripley, You're right. The background section is out of place since there is no secondary film critique source discussing the background (that I've read yet) that hits upon that. It grew out of defending inclusion of the criticism regarding the realism of the plot. I suspect Shah writes more about it in her book, so it could perhaps be added here as a reference from her book. But it would be better to point to a separate article on the 3rd world and pharma which is sure to exist already on wikipedia. So I agree that we should eliminate the section in a favor of a line that says something like "More information on the intersection of pharma & developing nations can be found here..." and points and counter points regarding Trovan vs. various gift programs would be more appropriate in that forum. I would appreciate a link to the anti-blog discussion. It seems a bit unliberal to ban the use of blogs on an open access encyclopedia so I need to read more about that... Sandwich Eater 01:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree -- it would be more appropriate to link to a background article about Big Pharma or such as that. That's what Wikipedia is for after all, inter-linking so people can click around for more information.  Generally, blogs are not considered reliable sources.  The function of Wikipedia's sourcing policy isn't to be "liberal" or uphold utopian ideals of an open access society, it's there to protect the editorial integrity of a global encyclopedia.  If I, who have no special expertise in pharmaceuticals, Africa, movies or anything related, put up a blog and start bloviating about what I think about this movie, I wouldn't expect a top-10 Web site, a global information provider, to link to my uninformed opinions to support some point being made by an article.  If Shah had a blog where she elaborated on her article, for instance, that might be different.  But in general, the bar for considering blogs to be reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes is extremely high, as it should be. &mdash; ripley/talk 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the wikilink so it's not just stuck down at the end, and I also deleted that enormous laundry list of awards Weisz won for her role (that's really more appropriate for the article on her). SE, thanks for working with me to make the section much cleaner and better-sourced.  Now on to the article on the book! &mdash; ripley/talk 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ripley, I took a very quick look at the reliable source page. it says:

"websites and blogs, particularly those associated with reliable sources of information. For example, the blog of an academic department is not merely a personal blog, but should be looked at in the totality of the source."

Note that what we are doing is sourcing critics. A critic can voice any opinion that they have since they are criticising a movie. I do not think we can say that Shah is authoratative while Tuna is not. The only argument there is that Tuna is not using a name, even a reasonable Pen Name. But I actually think that his writing is pretty good and there is little other than choice of Pen name to distinguish him from other critics. One could easily argue that other critics are more susceptible to corruption by the film industry.

Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia. All editors are free to edit regardless of screen name or putative authority. In this case, I think we should include the reference to the blog because in the same manner, he is providing subjective criticism of a film that has the same authority as anyone else's criticism or praise of a film. Sandwich Eater 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, this argument is a terrible red herring. Because all volunteers are welcome to edit does not mean that all information is welcome to be included, nor that all opinions are acceptable for inclusion in articles regardless of who they are. Were that the case, we wouldn't have policies about linkspam.  I do not think we can say that Shah is authoratative while Tuna is not. Yes, we certainly can, and moreover have an editorial responsibility to do just that.  Shah is a known commodity, trusted by a respected national publication to give her opinion on this topic.  Someone named Tuna is just some random person.  If we can't verify Tuna's identity as someone with expertise in this field, then we have no reason to think he or she has any.  Therefore, Tuna doesn't get included. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and editors are expected to exercise good judgment when deciding what information is appropriate to include. &mdash; ripley/talk 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Plot?
Lost in the whole controversy argument is the fact that there are very few details about this movie. I've never seen it and from this WP entry I can tell it is a movie seemingly critical of the big drug companies. Is it a documentary? I doubt it, but you cant tell from this page.

Who are the characters? What do they do? Why do they do it?

There is exactly one sentence of plot in the whole entry: "It tells the story of Justin Quayle, who finds his wife murdered and seeks to uncover the reasons behind her death."

125.187.178.32 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually my complaint as well. just saw the movie and I came here hoping to clear up some loose ends.  someone please update this Paskari 23:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary
In this revision in January, 2007, somebody added a massive braindump, not really a plot summary but a blow-by-blow account of the events of the film. There is no intermediate version to revert to, so I've taken the unusual step of removing the entire thing. Would somebody who has seen this film care to add a concise summary of the plot? --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
I've removed a whole section of very recently added trivia that seemed to be designed to insert spam for the trivia section of some kind of fan site into the references section. References must be to reliable sources and adding long lists of poorly referenced trivia to an article does not improve it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot section really needs work
I haven't watched the movie closely enough to do this now (although maybe I'll re-watch it sometime and then take this up myself), but someone really needs to fix the current plot section (added in this edit...not very long ago, just about a month and a half). As it is, it doesn't really tell what happens in the movie; it's written more like a teaser or a promotional snippet. And the style in which it is written makes it almost appear to be copied from somewhere else...the only reason I'm not more concerned about that is that I can't find the same wording in a Google search, and Julia Rossi (the editor who wrote the section) has been around a long time and knows better than that...nevertheless, the section still does have that sort of appearance.

I agree with everyone that the ridiculously long plot section that was there earlier had to be fixed, but this isn't really much better. It's just bad in a different way. Politizer talk / contribs 08:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Title?
Why is it called "the constant gardener" when it appears to be unrelated to gardening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.212.160 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the article, but I agree, the explanation is short and somewhat 'hidden'. I will expand it and draw attention to it.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  15:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge Constant Gardener Trust into The Constant Gardener (film); dated: September 19, 2021. Proposer's rationale: Not enough material in the former article to justify it not being a subsection of the latter. Pinging proposer Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a sensible suggestion. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

✅ TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary (again)
Having watched the film for the first time last night and then read the plot summary here... it's not great, is it? I see from the talk page it's been an issue for over a decade! I'm not sure it being written in chronological order makes much sense (it gives little impression of how the film plays out), and while there's a massive excess of detail (exactly how Arnold was tortured etc) it also omits some quite significant moments - conversations in Germany and in Kenya with Sandy, Tim and Curtis. It's weighted far too heavily on Tessa's actions and making it explicit what she/the drug companies did, rather than the narrative of the film. I'm also not entirely sure it has the relationship between KVH and Three Bees right - isn't KVH the developer and Three Bees the distributor?

I'd need to watch it again to write a proper summary and get a few things straight in my head (what exactly happens to Curtis and his loans etc). I'm not especially inclined to do that immediately after having seen it, but might I suggest that if anyone else decides to rewatch that they might consider drafting something? HornetMike (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)