3/10
Looking at the movie clearly
23 January 2004
I am the father who wrote the original comments criticizing this movie for its use of autism. To address those who have said, sometimes rather heatedly, that it is obvious that the girl is NOT autistic and anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish (or at least has a short attention span) please consider this:

If it were obvious from the beginning of the movie that the girl is suffering from an odd denial response brought on by a shaman's comments, and not an identifiable disorder, then the bulk of the movie would be meaningless. What would be the point of all the medical scenes with the use of apparently handicapped (including autistic) children if the viewer already "knows" the girl's problem?

The girl displays very striking features of childhood autism, so on what basis is it reasonable that the mother should resist treatment? You can say: "you see, it wasn't really autism," but as a simple dramatic point they don't give anyone but the guileless moviegoer any reason to think otherwise.

People with handicapped children often wish that anyone giving them bad news is wrong, and that there is a simple "magic" cure for their child's disorder, and so the movie unintentionally gives very bad advice.

I feel it is shameful for the movie makers to have used a disability and disabled people as props for a feelgood story that denies reality as much as the little girl does.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed