Drugs also means drugs, isn't this another meaning or metaphor? Love and drug addiction are sometimes very similar.
Jamie comes from a medical family, his father is a well-known surgeon (representing the hospital), and he himself is a drug salesman (representing the pharmaceutical company), Jamie is a terminally ill female patient who can't afford to see a doctor, isn't it also interesting Lenovo, the happy ending of the film is not only the sublimation of Jamie and Maggie from sexual relationship to love, but also a metaphor for an ideal of reconciliation between hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and patients. Their relationship should not only be a ruthless exchange of interests, but also It is a love that is inseparable from each other.
Let’s talk about social reality.
Since the United States is a market-oriented medical insurance system, the government only subsidizes some public medical insurance projects to provide medical insurance for the elderly, the disabled and the extremely poor, so there is a low-income group (more than 40 million people in 2009) Can't afford insurance and not eligible for government funding. Apparently Maggie was one of those people. In the consultation room, the doctor asked her if she had insurance, and Maggie just took out the cash dashingly. The tone of the doctor's inquiry also reflects this is a very common social reality. Maggie's job is to pick up the poor who go abroad to see a doctor in a group. In addition to reflecting that many people cannot afford to see a doctor, it also shows the problem of high medical costs in the United States. This is due to the strict medical liability system in the United States, which has led to the tradition of treating minor illnesses as serious ones, which has raised medical costs. The higher the cost, the more beneficial it is for hospitals and insurance companies, but the price is ultimately reflected in the premium. Canada has universal health insurance, and the relative medical costs are lower, which should be the foundation of Maggie's work. I don't know about specific regulations. I have said so much because I feel the social background and significance of this film (health care reform), which simply reflects the difficulty of seeing a doctor on their own. Judging from Maggie's insistence on working while sick and her living environment, her financial situation is worrying. And she's an extremely independent and strong woman, and it's hard to imagine what it will be like to lose the ability to work as her disease progresses. From a life and financial level, Jamie's love for her is not a panacea.
Maggie needs someone to love her. Of course, it is not just financial and life support, but more importantly, she needs a soul mate who can face illness and pain with him, give her courage, support and warmth, and accompany her. Live a long, miserable life. Who else in the world can do this except parents? Maybe a lover, maybe Jamie. But only maybe. Love is an acquired relationship. The object of love is often the will of life rather than rational decision. Its uniqueness and durability are very questionable. Or it relies only on reason and superstition on belief. Compared with innate family relationships that are supported by biological foundations and maintained by long-term shared life experiences, love is so fragile and ethereal, it is difficult to imagine what the scene will be like when passion recedes.
The basis of love is mutual attraction, which produces a strong psychological experience. I always thought that falling in love with a person was very clear, and although there may be a lack of understanding of the object of love, the passion is real. It's not so much falling in love with the other person as falling in love with love itself (in extreme cases that person can be incomplete or even non-existent). Of course, this is just the beginning. I always thought that true love is created, there is no love, only love stories and psychological experiences. According to the psychological division, love has the attributes of intimacy, passion and commitment. Jamie and Maggie don't have a hard time living together, so they can stay close. Passion is certainly not an issue, the two started with a sexual relationship. The promise needs to be proven by time, but they should get married, which is a form of promise. The love between Jamie and Maggie must be the first to lose passion, and gradually become a relationship of life partners. The two sides may increase their intimacy due to long-term life or their relationship may break down. As for promises, who knows? Nothing can be changed except the change itself. In fact, what I want to say is that love is only the beginning of the relationship between the two parties and a structure that maintains it. It needs the joint construction and maintenance of both parties. It is both the cause and the result, and it cannot exist independently of the content of the relationship between the two parties.
The prognosis for Jamie and Maggie is predictable, a quote from the husband of a Parkinson's patient in the movie: "I suggest you go upstairs and pack up, and then write a note to find a healthy woman, Love my wife, but if I could do it again, I wouldn't do it, no one told you that this disease will steal everything you love about her, her body, her smile, her memory, and sooner or later she will lose all mobility , in the end can't even dress herself, and then it's more fun, cleaning her excrement, her cold face, dementia, not a disease, just a Soviet novel". Isn't this shocking statement a reflection of death, which is not universal? We have never stopped dying because life is death. When death is intercepted on a large time scale, it is no longer an imperceptible quantitative change but an unacceptable qualitative change. Isn't death a terminal illness? Don't the people you love grow old and get sick, including yourself, and Maggie's situation just magnifies that reality. This means that the permanence (or permanence) of love must come at the expense of its purity and integrity (as opposed to the strict definition of love), and it is only a matter of time before it even becomes kinship. But at the same time "the meaning of love is always affirmed when it breaks the old order, and the act of love is always beyond love itself". Isn't this a bit contradictory. Having said that, whether the value of love should be judged by how long it lasts is also a question in itself.
It always felt that Jamie's love for Maggie was related to her particular situation, and that the illness must have affected Jamie's judgment and decisions as part of Maggie's existence. Quoting a passage from "Anxiety of Identity": "The idea that life is unavoidable led Andrew Marvell to make a well-known success in seducing a hesitant young woman to follow him through a poem. bed." "Mavelli used the specter of death to turn her attention from her place in society to her own desires". Man is "born toward death", and the fact of death cannot exist as a personal experience, it must be objective. Death here is the limited understanding of life that exists in personal consciousness. When its possibility is highlighted due to some special circumstances, it will undoubtedly influence personal judgment and make people tend to the most urgent inner desires and needs in their hearts. . But it can be overkill and lead to rash decisions. Also biologically, death and reproduction are closely related, and love serves reproduction. Didn't Jamie decide to let go of love because he felt death and the limited life of his lover, of course, if he loved Maggie, otherwise it would become a charity. But if it's true love isn't it sacrifice or charity? Probably because there is a universal ideal of the value of love—that it should transcend and embrace everything.
about sex. When sex is used as an expression (means) of love, it can be given meanings beyond itself. When it is pursued as an end, it is only itself. Sexual exchange is just an equal mutual prostitution, and its value is limited to the limitations of sex itself. But when the two sides have developed further, it has the meaning of being a bond and karma for both sides (Maggie and Jamie). Love and sex are always inseparable, but sometimes they can be separated. To a large extent, it is only a matter of identification. In an era of sexual openness, it can be separated, because it is not valued only as a need, and is only a way of exchanging interests or even getting rid of it under the agreement of both parties. moral judgment. The importance of an action itself depends only on the consensus formed by the social environment, for which many examples can be found in time and space. In other words, sex does not play a decisive role in Jamie and Maggie's love, because both parties are equal and willing, and do not have to take any responsibility for it. Facts have also proved that Maggie's debauchery can't bring her love (otherwise sex workers...), her love with Jamie is more of a coincidence and luck.
The last sentence: Jamie, the bohemian and cynical playboy, chooses Maggie, who is free and easy, who has no medical insurance and is terminally ill. It is not only a choice of love, but also a choice of life. Isn't it.
View more about Love & Other Drugs reviews
