Tom RostonIndependent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.

You can follow Tom on Twitter @DocSoupMan.

Fire in the Blood: A Must-See Film at Sundance

by |

This year’s Sundance Film Festival, which kicks off on Thursday, is filled with documentaries that must be seen. When I say, “must,” I don’t mean the one about basketball player Jeremy Lin (Linsanity) or the one about actor Mariel Hemingway’s messed up family (Running from Crazy), or the one about the rock band, The Eagles (History of The Eagles Part 1). As compelling as those films are, and I look forward to seeing each of those, I mean to address the films that, if enough people are moved by them, would benefit the world.

I recently spoke to the festival’s head programmer, Trevor Goth, for a story for The New York Times about the thousands of films that don’t get into Sundance, and he said that what weighs on him the most about rejecting a film is when it’s a documentary about a significant subject that the world has to see. And, indeed, it appears that the World Documentary category (as opposed to the U.S or Premiere categories) is especially full of such films.

There’s A River Changes Course, about the rapid development and destruction of Cambodia, on both human and environmental levels. Also, there’s Salma, about a Muslim girl in India who overcame decades of oppression to become an inspiring poet. Pussy Riot-A Punk Prayer is about the punk rockers in Russia who went through a very public trial for speaking out. This may fall into the cool, diverting film category, considering the rockers at its core, but Russian president Vladimir Putin is no joke; his iron grip on this vast and powerful nation has allowed him to inflict many unchecked human rights abuses on his own people.

And the one film that I’d put to the top of your must-see list is Fire in the Blood. This World category entry, directed by Dylan Mohan Gray, who’s based in Mumbai, is about how Western pharmaceutical companies block access to cheaper medicines in developing nations, in turn denying people access to AIDS-combatting drugs. Gray speaks to survivors, doctors, and activists. He lays it all out, chronicling the history of the development of AZT and how U.S. policy has hindered its spread to helping people who can’t afford it. And there is a solution – breaking down restrictive international agreements so that cheap generic drugs can be distributed to the millions of people who need it.

This may be a must-see film but don’t think of it as spinach. (Or, if it is, it’s as if it were prepared by Alain Ducasse.) Gray crosses the planet and manages to set up a lot of breath-taking wide shots of faraway places that make this a beautiful film to watch. And he talks to people who give great interviews, including Bill Clinton and several mavericks who’ve led the fight against the pharmaceutical companies.

Really, Fire in the Blood should be considered a companion film to David France’s much-championed Oscar-nominated film, How to Survive a Plague, about the AIDS activist movement of the 1980s and 1990s. That was history. But the plague continues in the rest of the world.

Fire in the Blood begins screening at the festival on January 20th. You should see it—not because you must, but because you will be moved and enraged, and happy that you did.

Tom Roston
Tom Roston
Tom Roston is a guest columnist for POV's documentary blog. He comes to us as a ten-year veteran of Premiere magazine, where he was a Senior Editor, and where he wrote the column, Notes from the Dream Factory. Tom was born and raised in New York City. He graduated from Brown University and started his career in journalism at The Nation and then Vanity Fair. Tom has also written for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, GQ, New York, Elle and other publications. Tom's favorite documentaries are: 1. Koyanisqaatsi - Godfrey Reggio 2. Hoop Dreams - Steve James 3. The Up series - Michael Apted 4. Crumb - Terry Zwigoff 5. Capturing the Friedmans - Andrew Jarecki
  • nwmhqqty

    You know, I’m all for charging less for pharma, but that ultimately means spending less on pharma research and less on pharma scientists. Oh sure, we could cut out several million by slicing the paychecks of the phara execs, but ultimately we’re cutting off our access to the next generation of drugs.

    • Doc Soup Man

      Thanks for your comment but I believe you’re incorrect. Do you know how much pharma spends on research and development? A small fraction of its budget. Do you know how much of its research and development is actually financed by the government (the taxpayers)? It’s astounding. YOU have got to see this doc. It may change the way you see things.

      • nwmhqqty

        Yeah, it’s not the whole budget, but it will still get squeezed if the budget shrinks. I know the marketing departments are out of whack but the R&D will shrink if the entire pie shrinks. That’s just how it works.

        • Marley

          Not only is R&D not the whole budget, it’s actually only about 12-18% of pharmaceutical company budgets depending on the estimates you look at. Furthermore, many of the most novel and innovative drugs that address previously unmet health needs actually have their birthplace in universities and federal research institutions like the NIH. Pharma spends most of its R & D money on “me too” drugs. Much as they would have us all believe that cutting their profits would reduce innovation, that argument holds very little water when we take a closer look at the numbers (and furthermore downplays human ingenuity, curiosity, and desire to solve problems and innovate regardless of the mighty dollar).

  • Pingback: Sundance 2013: Which Way is the Front Line From Here? The Life and Time of Tim Hetherington | Doc Soup | POV Blog | PBS