Didn't you guys see his finger move in the final goodbye scene? she holds his hand and his finger moves slightly
shareActually that's one thing, of many, disabled and medical people complained about. Someone won is paralysed from the neck down can't move their hands. In some cases of incomplete quadriplegia there is some wrist action but hand no function. But the film is a cynical tearjerker, reality doesn't come into it.
Then those people are wrong and/or didn't watch the movie. It's possible to gain limited functions of certain muscles. Otherwise Stephen Hawking wouldn't be able to move around or type out his thoughts with his cheek muscles. The film never claimed he could move his entire hand, just a few fingers. And he wasn't paralyzed from the neck down, he was paralyzed from the chest down.
shareDisabled people certainly did watch the film and read the book. I mentioned that some people can be partial paraplegics with some movement but many don't. Stephen Hawking has ALS, he didn't have a spinal injury that left him paralysed. The disease meant he gradually lost the use of his muscles over time, until he can now only move his cheek muscles. A big difference between the two. In the book the character was paralysed from the neck down. Even so the cheek muscles are above the neck, why would they be affected. Even the book's author, Louisa Clarke, has condemned the film because it ignored the less glamorous aspects of looking after a paraplegic, or what one has to go through.
I think you're very much confused... and more than a little deceitful. The book on which the film was based was written by Jojo Moyes, Louisa Clark being one of two principal characters in her story, and she's the one who wrote the screenplay. So she's clearly not going to "condemn" her own work. You're just making up false facts to push your own world viewpoint on others. Shame on you.
shareSo I got the author wrong. But the rest is not my own world viewpoint but also people in the disabled community. It also doesn't hide the fact why, diehard romantics excepted, people may find it offensive. Though to be fair it is pure fantasy. It is disability treated as soap opera. Pat, manufactured, with an ugly message that death is better than disability. All to make people reach for hankies at the end. That is definitely not just my viewpoint. Shame on those who made it.
Benman.....from the minute Louisa Clarke gets a job at Will's house, it is made clear by Will's aid that he will be taking care of the lesa glamourous side of looking after a quadriplegic. He even states that she is mainly there to keep him company. The movie is not focused on the care he receieves from his care giver.
2. I don't believe the movie is saying that disability is so bad that one must resort to ending their life. That is an overgeneralisation on your part. Rather the movie sheds light on why some people opt for assisted suicide.
It doesn't matter how much they are able to enjoy their lives or whether they meet someone wonderful who encourages them to fulfill a bucket list. The point is, as is clearly shown in this movie, some people are not willing to accept life with disability. Will said he loved his life before and his disability took away the things that he loved about his life (he was a very athletic guy, a bit of a daredevil and at the beginning of the movie we see he had a healthy sex life with his girlfriend) and he just didn't feel like himself anymore.
This disability would mean even if he were to fall in love again, which he did, with Louisa, he couldn't make love to her and he couldn't even have children with anyone (though his feelings on children are never revealed in the movie) and he couldn't engage in any kind of sport so according to him, this disability was a huge drop in his quality of life, not to mention the pain and the constant trips to the hospital, being prone to infections, etc.
Poor thing.
Great movie. I now have a better understanding of euthanasia whereas before I only had judgement for its supporters.
1) She asks in the movie about 'what if he needs to...' and the response is 'you won't be dealing with the really physical stuff' (not exact quotes). This is clearly what if he needs to use the bathroom - his other caregiver saying she's not there for that. If anyone didn't know, when you are dealing with a person without mobility, someone has to bathe them, change them and wipe their bottom. It's life.
2) Google search Ian Burkhart. Learn something.
3) My university hosted a sporting event for wheelchair bound individuals (it was an accessibility meeting of the minds type thing). A bunch of actively participating individuals came to the university and played a match of Murder Ball. Everyone there was different but numerous individuals had spinal cord injuries. There was one man whom I spoke with for quite some time who had very similar mobility to what is being presented here. Just because it's not common doesn't mean it doesn't happen. He had motorized control of his wheelchair and he was able to pivot his forearm and lift it slightly. He was unable to move anything else below the neck. Anyone criticizing the movie for that 'error' has limited familiarity with the variety of spinal cord injuries possible.
Ford.
Yes?
I think I'm a sofa.
I know how you feel.
There are two parts where it is mentioned about Will's mobility. When Camilla Traynor interviews Louisa Clarke she described Will as having very limited mobility down to only slight movement in his fingers. The other bit is where Will is in having his hospital appointment Louisa and Nathan are outside talking and Nathan says to Louisa that will has lost mobility from here (middle of his chest) down.He put it all in to the first year of physiotherapy and all he got was slight movement in his thumb and forefinger
share[deleted]